S3 Ep263: John O'Keefe: Dog Bites, Theories, and Closing Arguments (Part 6)

In the early morning hours of Saturday, January 29th, 2022, Boston Police officer John O’Keefe was found dead in a snowbank outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. According to the medical examiner, O’Keefe had died from blunt force trauma and hypothermia. At first it seemed like a tragic accident, maybe a slip on the ice, a fall that ended in death. But as investigators dug deeper, things became far more complicated and Karen Read, O’Keefe’s girlfriend, became the center of the investigation. Evidence that there had been trouble in paradise in the romantic relationship began to surface, but so did other disturbing possibilities. What seemed like a domestic tragedy was quickly clouded by allegations of police corruption and cover-up, and an investigation that many believe was compromised from the start. What if the very people tasked with upholding the law were covering up the truth? Was John O’Keefe’s death a result of an angry lovers rage- or the collateral damage of a police force protecting its own? In this case, the line between justice and corruption becomes confusingly blurred. Evidence disappears, witnesses are silenced, and as the truth slowly rises to the surface, it may reveal a web of lies that’s more dangerous than anyone could have predicted. Was Karen Read the scapegoat in a larger cover-up? And what role did corruption within the police department play in distorting facts. This may not be just a story of love gone wrong, it may in fact turn out to be a story of power, deceit, and the price people will pay to keep the darkest of dark secrets buried. Join us as we delve deep into the case of John O’Keefe and Karen Read, and help us see if we can get closer to the truth. Try our coffee!! - www. CriminalCoffeeCo.comBecome a Patreon member -- > ｿ https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeeklyShop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> ｿ https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shopYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcastWebsite: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.comInstagram: @CrimeWeeklyPodTwitter: @CrimeWeeklyPodFacebook: @CrimeWeeklyPodADS:1. ProlonLife.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 15% off your 5-Day Nutrition Program!

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow.

• 0:15Derrick Levasseur?

  And I'm Derrick Levasseur.

• 0:17Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, we're diving into part six of the John O'Keefe and Karen Reed case. This is the final part. I know that everything probably wasn't in here, but at this point, this case has just become quite convoluted. And I don't think, I don't think it's one of those, here, here's what I'm going to say. I don't think it's one of those cases where the deeper you look and the more you know, the easier it is to figure out what happened. It's like the deeper you look and the more you know, the more difficult it becomes to figure out what happened. Like, it gets you further away from where you want to be, because you just don't know anymore. What is white noise? What's a distraction? What's a fact? It's very difficult. So.

• 0:55Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, I think you have covered most of the big, from what I've been seeing in the comments and what I see on social media, the facts of the case, you've hit them all.

• 1:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yes.

• 1:03Derrick Levasseur?

  It's the interpretations and the arguments behind those.

• 1:06Stephanie Harlowe?

  And like the weird theories. Not weird. I don't mean weird. Some of them are quite good.

• 1:10Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes.

• 1:10Stephanie Harlowe?

  But like, the theories that people know because they've devoted so much time to this and they know everything and they've made like flow charts and I'm impressed. But.

• 1:21Derrick Levasseur?

  So that's, that is one part of it where people are interpreting data that we've, we've brought up or information that we've brought up and they're coming to their own conclusions. But you're not going to cover every single argument here. I mean, it'd be a 20-part series.

• 1:33Stephanie Harlowe?

  Exactly. And nobody wants that, least of all Derek.

• 1:38Derrick Levasseur?

  No. And, and here's what I'll say. Regardless of how much we cover it, and regardless of what rebuttal we may have for some of them, there'll always be a rebuttal to that rebuttal. So people, there's one thing I know about this case.

• 1:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, this could go on forever. I agree.

• 1:52Derrick Levasseur?

  People who think that Karen Reed is innocent, there's nothing that I'm going to say, or you're going to say, or anyone's going to show that's going to convince them otherwise. Conversely, anybody who thinks she's guilty, they're pretty, they're pretty locked in as well. There's two different sides on this case. They both feel equally strong about their opinion. And there's nothing that we're going to say that's going to change that. We're kind of going, we're, we're speaking to the people who maybe don't know all the specifics of this case, or haven't really come to a conclusion yet, or maybe just want to bitch at us for coming to our own opinions. But as far as where people stand, there's nothing that we're going to present where it's going to be this lightbulb moment where you say, oh, you know what? I didn't know

• 2:33Derrick Levasseur?

  that. Now I feel differently. Most of the facts of this case and the general understanding of what occurred that night and what was discovered and what wasn't discovered and how it was discovered. You guys know it. Most of you already know it. We're just going over it and it's really for me to kind of develop my own opinions on this case, based on what we've talked about over the six parts.

• 2:54Stephanie Harlowe?

  I agree. And, you know, like I said, not really a cut and dry case. Whose fault is that? A lot of people. A lot of people.

• 3:02Derrick Levasseur?

  I think law enforcement being the number one.

• 3:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, if the investigation had been done properly, we might have some clearer answers here, but that's neither here nor there.

• 3:09Derrick Levasseur?

  They could have done a better job of building their case, but also dispelling any potential theories that are coming up now by doing a more thorough investigation, i.e. going into the house, i.e. using the proper bags and boxes to store evidence and having a better, being able to articulate better the reconstruction of the scene. Obviously, Trooper Paul was terrible. There's a lot. We won't get too far into it. One thing before we get into the episode, I just want to say happy holidays to everyone. As you're watching this, New Year's Eve just came up and passed and New Year's Day is already gone and we're excited about the new year. We're going into this year with a new episode for, I should say, a new series after we cover Karen Reed for the

• 3:52Derrick Levasseur?

  last part. And we're looking forward to it. We have some plans. We're going to try to do better with some other things that we're doing like Patreon and things like that, but it's, it's a process. We're doing Criminal Coffee in this as well. So we're only two people. We do have a couple of team members that work with us every week, but overall, it's basically just us and we're growing this. I like to call it a slow burn. So bear with us. We're very excited about the future and what we have planned. We're talking about doing a couple of live episodes as well. So a lot in the shoot. We just got to get there. Eventually, and one final thing on criminal coffee, peppermint bark completely sold out. We got about fifty to a hundred bags that we just roasted. That's all I have. That's gonna be it. This is gonna be a seasonal coffee. So peppermint bark.

• 4:37Derrick Levasseur?

  If you liked it, or you wanna try it, make sure you order it immediately because once it's gone, it's gone. We're gonna carry flavored coffee throughout the year, but there are gonna be seasonal recipes like peppermint bark. So you gotta get them when they're here. That was it. But thank you for the support on that. It exceeded our expectations as far as the turnout and as far as the demand for it. But I'm happy to see that you guys liked it.

• 4:59Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yes, we, and I love the coffee. I love it. So, yeah.

• 5:03Derrick Levasseur?

  It's great. I gave it, it was basically a Christmas gift for everyone. That's what I did.

• 5:06Stephanie Harlowe?

  Mm-hmm. And it was a great Christmas gift. Yeah. So, let's dive in.

• 5:11Derrick Levasseur?

  Let's do it.

• 5:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  Let's dive in. I'm gonna start the last episode of the series in sort of the same way I started the first. But instead of telling you about opening statements, we're going to look at closing statements. And it's gonna help us organize and remember what points each side was trying to make throughout this trial. Because remember, the state has the burden of proof. The defense is going to deliver their closing arguments first with the, in my opinion, the great Alan Jackson at the helm.

• 5:40Speaker 02

  Look the other way. Four words that sum up the Commonwealth's entire case. Four words that sum up the hopes of those who have tried to deceive you. Conflicts of interest, doesn't matter. Just look the other way. Magic hairs, magic glass, look the other way. Late night calls and Google searches, falsified affidavits, inverted videos, and butt dials galore. Just look the other way.

• 6:11Speaker 02

  That's what they want. That's what they're counting on, but the uncontroversial fact is you have been lied to in this courtroom. And your job is to make sure you don't ever, ever look the other way. Your singular duty is to stare down the evidence and do it unflinchingly and do it unwaveringly. You see, you're the only thing standing between Karen Reed and the tyranny of injustice. A job you didn't ask for, probably a job you didn't want, but it's the greatest responsibility we have as citizens here in America. Lest the government stop answering to us and we start answering to the government. And low be tide, anyone.

• 6:52Speaker 02

  Any one of us, any one of us who might find ourselves in the crosshairs of a Michael Proctor.

• 6:59Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right. So I think what Jackson did here is very smart because he's taking the real, and as we've seen throughout the trial, provable mistakes made by law enforcement in this case, and posing it to the jury as average citizens, as the everyman, right? If this could happen to Karen Reed, it could happen to me. It could happen to you. It could happen to any of us. We can see from Michael Proctor's texts that he was not an unbiased investigator in this case. And even if he, as a human, was able to separate how he felt personally from his professional work, would any of you still feel comfortable taking that chance, knowing that the lead investigator on the case, who, you know, had some weight of responsibility

• 7:41Stephanie Harlowe?

  for whether you go to prison for the rest of your life or not, and he hates you, hates everything about you, and he's the one investigating, collecting evidence to give to the district attorney to make a case against you, would you feel comfortable, even if he was like, listen, yeah, I hate her, but I can still remain unbiased. I'm not going to take that chance, would you? I don't want to take it.

• 8:04Derrick Levasseur?

  No, no, that's the main crux of this whole case. And I've said it numerous times, there is a world where Proctor did his job, for the most part, but just didn't like Karen Reed. But because of the optics of it, as a human being, as a reasonable person, we can't assume that. Based on the things that he was saying about not only her as a person, but also some of her conditions, medical conditions she had, just the lack of respect for her, he didn't even really view her as a person, to think that he's going to give Karen Reed a fair shake during this investigation is very difficult to believe, just by those text messages. And to think that he's the captain of the ship in this investigation, that is extremely concerning, and it should be for everyone.

• 8:49Stephanie Harlowe?

  And listen, there are people, and law enforcement people, who can compartmentalize and can be like, hey, I really don't like this person personally, but I'm not going to let it cloud my judgment. Maybe they exist, okay?

• 9:01Derrick Levasseur?

  Listen, you and I have talked about this before. I've had to sit across the table with a child molester and talk to him on a level that we're friends.

• 9:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, but you did that so that he would confess and feel comfortable with you.

• 9:14Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, and I'm doing that to build the case. And even though I think he's the scum of the earth. I still had to explore theories that I knew weren't true like, oh, I don't even want to go into the details of it, but with with younger people or even just sexual assaults with women who are who are adults who could have technically consented. I have to still I have to still explore those theories to rule them out so that he can't use them as defense in trial. Even though I know they're bullshit and there's no chance that's what happened, I still have to go into it with open eyes and open ears. And evaluate it from an objective perspective so that when I testify at court, I can prove my case, but also show how I checked other possibilities. And was able to rule them out one by one.

• 9:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  Just cover your ass dude, that's it.

• 10:00Derrick Levasseur?

  But that's how you're supposed to do it. So yeah, did I like the person that I was going after? No, of course not. There were cases where I didn't. But I was able to separate myself knowing that if I let my emotions cloud my judgment. He could be the one getting the last laugh at trial when he's acquitted because of something I did wrong.

• 10:17Stephanie Harlowe?

  The fact of the matter is, as United States citizens, we are. We are innocent until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of our peers. We are afforded the right to a fair trial. Now, that fair trial is not Karen Reed, knowing what Michael Proctor was saying about her is not going to feel that she's getting a fair trial. Based on the lead investigator's personal comments about her that he never thought anybody was going to see. And I don't blame her. So I would.

• 10:48Derrick Levasseur?

  Completely agree.

• 10:49Stephanie Harlowe?

  I think you and I and everybody sitting here can give, oh yeah, we can give Michael Proctor the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he could have done. It doesn't matter if Karen Reed didn't feel that she could give him the benefit of the doubt. That's all that matters at this point. She is she has the right to a fair trial. And that's not what happened here.

• 11:06Derrick Levasseur?

  You pose the best. If that were you or I. And we saw that our the lead investigator who's trying to decide if we're guilty or innocent. Was writing those text messages about us before even really getting into too much of the investigation. Would you feel confident? That's the question you posed and it's the perfect question to ask. No, you wouldn't.

• 11:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  Within hours of finding John's body, it's crazy. Okay.

• 11:28Derrick Levasseur?

  Is that gonna, is that gonna give you confidence? No.

• 11:30Stephanie Harlowe?

  No. I'm not, I'm feeling very uncomfy about it if I'm Karen Reed.

• 11:34Derrick Levasseur?

  Agreed.

• 11:35Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah. Alright, so Alan Jackson's gonna continue on here.

• 11:38Speaker 02

  Ladies and gentlemen, there was a cover-up in this case, plain and simple. You'll surely say to yourself, "I don't wanna believe it. I don't wanna believe that could happen in our community." But sadly, over the past eight weeks, you've seen it, right before your eyes. So how does a cover-up happen? How could that happen?

• 11:58Speaker 02

  Well, let's count the ways, shall we?

• 12:01Speaker 02

  Handpick your investigator. Make sure it's someone we know, someone on our side. Keep him close. Offer him help. Offer him a gift.

• 12:10Speaker 02

  Have secret friends and family meetings. Get your story straight. Delete your call history. Make mysterious phone calls at 2:22 a.m. Delete Google searches. Monitor police activity. Get rid of evidence. Get rid of your dog. Destroy your phones. Destroy your SIM card.

• 12:28Speaker 02

  For the investigator, decide on a narrative early on. Don't go to the crime scene. Don't take witnesses in for questioning. Question all the witnesses together. Ignore witnesses who don't fit your narrative. Allow friends and family to contact those same witnesses. Don't record interviews. Write vague and false police reports. Omit witnesses' names. Omit witnesses' interviews, altogether. Don't photograph the evidence. Don't conduct any forensics. Don't document the evidence. Don't document the, the, the logs. Don't create any logs whatsoever and don't maintain a chain of custody. Keep all the evidence in the hands of one person and then manipulate that evidence, including videos.

• 13:08Speaker 02

  Don't turn over videos. Invert videos. Turn 4:16 p.m. into 5:30 p.m. in affidavits. Turn three pieces of taillight into five pieces of taillight. Delete 42 minutes of surveillance footage. Hide personal relationships. Make this case cut and dry and ensure the homeowner, quote, "never sees any shit because he's a Boston cop." But most importantly...

• 13:37Speaker 02

  Pick your patsy and pin it on the girl.

• 13:43Speaker 02

  It's not that it could happen. It's that every single one of those things I just mentioned did happen, right in front of you.

• 13:55Speaker 02

  But this sort of injustice can't happen in a vacuum. So what about the prosecution? What about the Commonwealth? What does it look like when the government picks a narrative and then tries to form a prosecution around the narrative?

• 14:08Speaker 02

  Instead of the other way around? Looks a lot like this. If you don't have actual evidence, just throw every single thing you can against the wall to see what sticks. Drag her through the mud and make sure you attack her character. And that's what you saw in this case.

• 14:26Speaker 02

  The Commonwealth spent much of their time and resources trying to vilify Karen Reed. They desperately resorted to calling witnesses to talk about Karen Reed and John O'Keefe's arguments. They even stooped so low as to call the children and put them through this ordeal. All to say that John sometimes got upset because Karen was too kind, too nice, spoiled them too much. Their arguments illustrated what anybody could imagine is a normal set of ups and downs for any couple. Even on January 28th, they talked it out, they communicated, they worked out their issues, and they had a nice affectionate evening out with their friends. And you don't have to take my word for it. Pull the tape, as they say. Look at the videos.

• 15:11Speaker 02

  C.F. McCarthy, waterfall.

• 15:16Speaker 02

  What are the words that every single person who testified in this case used about Karen Reed and John O'Keefe that night? Getting along, no issues, good mood, happy, affectionate, even lovey dovey. No issues, no toxicity. They were a loving couple right up until the time Karen Reed dropped him off and he walked into 34 Fairview.

• 15:41Speaker 02

  If an argument with a loved one is a motive for murder, folks, we're all in trouble.

• 15:44Stephanie Harlowe?

  And I do agree with Jackson here. Whether Karen Reed hit John O'Keefe with her car or not, it seems the prosecution really focused on her and did not explore any other avenues. And not only did they focus the investigation on that narrative, but they focused their prosecutorial tactics around that narrative. It just, I mean, simply not pulling Ring doorbell footage from, from the street. There was a cop who lived across the street that had surveillance footage, had a surveillance camera, which would have shown the street, right where this happened. You were so certain that Karen Reed did this, you didn't even go around to those people and gather this surveillance footage. You

• 16:28Stephanie Harlowe?

  could say that was on purpose because you didn't want to see the footage, or you could say it was because they developed tunnel vision from day one and said, we know what happened here, we know who did it, and there's no need for a thorough investigation. Either way, a thorough investigation was not done. Jackson then goes into the evidence he and the defense believe proves that John O'Keefe entered the Albert home that night. He talks about how the prosecution uses eyewitness testimony as proof that John didn't go into the house. But Jackson points out why this is flawed, because every person in the house that night was either related to the Alberts or had a close relationship to them, which would make them more loyal to Brian Albert than Karen Reed. And you could say, well, oh, they also knew John O'Keefe. Like, would they be more loyal to Brian Albert than John

• 17:13Stephanie Harlowe?

  O'Keefe? It doesn't matter, because John O'Keefe's dead now, and Brian Albert's alive. And you don't owe Karen Reed anything, because she's the outsider, she's just John's girlfriend. And so you may say, well, John's gone, there's nothing we can do for him now, but we can still save Brian, right? This is what Alan Jackson is saying, that they would have more motive to protect Brian Albert than to tell the truth. And I don't know about that necessarily. Every single person who was in the house that night said that John O'Keefe never entered the home. And I'll save most of it for my final thoughts, but I kind of agree that John O'Keefe did not enter the home.

• 17:51Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, yeah. I mean, we're going to talk about that in the end, but yeah, yeah, I'm with you as well.

• 17:56Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah. And that doesn't mean that I think Karen intentionally killed him, but I-

• 18:01Derrick Levasseur?

  It also doesn't mean that Karen was involved at all. Something could have happened outside. But do I think John O'Keefe went in the house now?

• 18:06Stephanie Harlowe?

  I don't, I really don't, but, and I know people are going to be mad at me, but there's just not enough evidence.

• 18:11Derrick Levasseur?

  We'll save it, but even the GPS supports it. I mean, the phone went in the house for like six seconds. It was like super quick. It was like a glitch.

• 18:18Stephanie Harlowe?

  Speaking of the GPS, Alan Jackson's going to touch on that as well.

• 18:23Speaker 02

  But what's the real evidence of the unbiased data? The data that's not connected to the Albert family? How about John's Apple Health data? It shows that at 12:21 a.m., an important time, John arrived. That's established by the monotonic time clock that you heard about in this trial. It was on his phone, and that represents a huge problem for the Commonwealth. It shows that he took 80 steps and ascended or descended three flights of stairs at that time. And that makes perfect sense, doesn't it? It matches. Walks into the house, goes directly to the basement. There's your 80 steps and your descending flights of stairs.

• 19:04Speaker 02

  The big problem for the Commonwealth is, he wasn't outside at the car, ascending and descending stairs, wouldn't climb it on top of the car. So they'll tell you, wait, wait, wait, don't look at the Apple Health data, look at this other thing called ways. But Rick Green explained that if you apply the three-minute offset that is built into that monotonic time, it aligns perfectly.

• 19:30Speaker 02

  They don't want you to see that. They don't want you to pay attention. They want you to look the other way. But even more importantly, at approximately 12:32 a.m., someone, holding John's phone, takes another 36 steps and travels 25 meters. Why is that so important? Because by 12:32 a.m., Karen Reed was gone. She had already left the location. She left at 12:30. Trooper Guarino told you that Karen Reed's phone connected to John's Wi-Fi at what time? 12:36. It is undisputed, in this case, that it's a six-minute drive, on a good day,

• 20:13Speaker 02

  from 34 Fairview over to 1 Meadows. She was gone by 12:30. And John's phone was taking 36 steps and logging 25 meters at 12:32, after she left. So don't be fooled. John walked into that house, after which Karen drove away, and the scientific data all prove it. But also, Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxson prove it. In addition to the Apple Health data, Ryan and Heather both independently testified that they passed Karen's SUV as they drove away after talking to Julie. And Karen was alone in the SUV. John was not with her. He wasn't in the car.

• 20:57Speaker 02

  He wasn't standing outside the car. He wasn't sitting beside the car. He wasn't laying on the ground beside the car. He was nowhere in sight. There's only one other place that John could have been, and that's in the house. Exactly where the Apple Health data places him. So it all fits.

• 21:16Speaker 02

  And Ryan was right behind her, remember, staring at her taillights. Undamaged, brightly lit.

• 21:24Speaker 02

  That brings up another difficulty for the Commonwealth, and that's their star witness, Jennifer McCabe. You'll recall that Jennifer McCabe claimed that she was looking out the door, staring at that SUV over and over and over again from 12:29 to 12:50. She was very specific about that timeframe. But we know that the SUV was gone from 34 Fairview by about 12:30. Had to be, in order to connect to the Wi-Fi at 12:36. So unequivocally, Jennifer McCabe was lying about watching that SUV, and it makes you wonder why. And to add to that deceit, she was also blatantly lying about the calls to John's phone. You remember that call that we back and forth?

• 22:07Stephanie Harlowe?

  And we've already gone through a lot of this stuff. The whole Jen McCabe saying she saw Karen's SUV until 12:50. I will never understand that because we absolutely know Karen could not have been there at 12:50, no matter what way you cut it. Well, like I said, we've already gone through a lot of this stuff. Derek and I both agree, based on which side you're sitting on and how the evidence is posed by different witnesses or experts, what lenses is it put through, these things can be explained away as coincidence or irrelevant or misunderstanding or even attributed to an intentional cover-up, depending on how you want to look at it. So if Karen Reed did not hit John O'Keefe, what does the defense believe happened to John in the Albert home?

• 22:48Speaker 02

  I draw your attention to the waterfall tape. If you're, if you want to take another look at it, it's at 11, the 11:57 mark, between 11:57 and 11:58. Take a look at that tape. He's just about to leave. Higgins is just about to leave. He points over at John and he motions for him. Come on, come on, come with me. And then at 12:20, he texts him, you coming here? This is a person he doesn't really know and didn't really talk to that entire night. Ask yourself, why was Higgins so insistent that John go to 34 Fairview that night? And then there's that sparring and fighting that he and Brian Albert were engaged in. Of all the things they could be doing, this is what they were doing just

• 23:32Speaker 02

  minutes before John O'Keefe walked into that house at 34 Fairview.

• 23:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  So just a quick note here. There's so much going on in this case. I can't remember if we talked about this yet, but Alan Jackson is referring to Brian Higgins and Brian Albert at the Waterfall Bar and Grill, you know, shortly before they left that night, the two were seen on surveillance sparring and throwing punches at each other. And they would later testify that they were just play fighting, messing around. And maybe I haven't even brought it up yet because I thought this was so stupid. I thought it was a stupid point for the defense to make. They're like, look at them. They're, they're play fighting. Like these are, these people are violent. This is what they do for fun. They punch each other. And it's like, I've been around enough men to know this, this is what men do. Okay? They love.

• 24:18Stephanie Harlowe?

  Like sparring with each other and bouncing around and landing like soft little punches and playing and and these guys were drinking. Okay, I don't I don't think it's anything like, oh, look, they were they were sparring with each other at the bar. And then John O'Keefe gets beat up. I just, I don't know. What do you think about it? I kind of think it's stupid.

• 24:37Derrick Levasseur?

  I mean, everyone's different. I mean, I'm I'm for I'm gonna be 41 next month, so I'm not doing too much sparring these days. But yeah, back in the day, for sure, especially if people have been drinking, I've definitely been witnessed to guys starting off sparring and then it turns into a an actual altercation that happens too.

• 24:53Stephanie Harlowe?

  Do you think it's relevant, though? Do you think like John, not John, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins? Play fighting at the bar before they go home. It's not like it was Brian Albert and John O'Keefe or Brian Higgins, John O'Keefe. It's just Brian, the two Bryans. You know, being being some like unruly drunk men together and it's not like they're actually hitting each other or trying to hurt each other. They're just messing around.

• 25:15Derrick Levasseur?

  It's probably not relevant, but it's what you said at the top of this episode, which is what we have to keep in mind as we're as we're evaluating everything. Alan Jackson, his job isn't to prove what happened to John O'Keefe. His job is to create reasonable doubt. And, you know, I'm gonna get into the open, the his closing statement there. But if you notice, he didn't focus on one thing. He focused on a lot of things. And why and why is he doing that?

• 25:41Stephanie Harlowe?

  Mainly because it is supposed to be sort of a summary of what we covered in court, but also because it's like very salacious, like I'm gonna give quick bullet points like, oh, got rid of the house, got rid of the dog. Got rid, you know, like boom, boom, boom, boom. It's like, wow, when you put it all together like that, you know.

• 26:00Derrick Levasseur?

  But it's also because he only needs you to buy into one thing. And if for different people, it's gonna be different, a different piece of evidence or a different theory that he puts forward. He doesn't care which one you believe in, just that you find her not guilty. That's his job. That's why he's great at what he does. And to what you said earlier, the great Alan Jackson, I would hire him in a heartbeat to represent me.

• 26:21Stephanie Harlowe?

  In a heartbeat, yeah.

• 26:21Derrick Levasseur?

  So I agree, he's very good at his job and he knows what his goal is. Unfortunately, he's not here to find out what happened to John O'Keefe. He's just here to show that his client is not responsible for it. That's his job, and he's doing it very well.

• 26:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  I think he did, yeah, absolutely. If it's about raising reasonable doubt.

• 26:41Derrick Levasseur?

  That's what his go- so the Brian Brian thing to tie this back up, is it relevant? Probably not, but that's not the point. He's just built, they're building blocks. He's throwing things out there to say, hey, what if? What if? And when, and when the prosecution and the investigators don't do their job, that what if isn't answered.

• 27:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, he's carefully crafting a wall that the jury's gonna have a hard time seeing over or getting over.

• 27:06Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, that's a great way to say it, yeah.

• 27:08Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, let's take a quick break and then we'll return to the rest of Alan Jackson's statement.

• 27:17Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, we're back, so we're just gonna hear another little clip from Alan Jackson, and then we'll discuss.

• 27:23Speaker 02

  We know that once, once John actually did walk in the door, it's about two steps, four feet or so, two steps for a, for an adult male to reach that basement door. Remember, everybody was gathered in the kitchen. That's what Nicole Albert said. And every single witness agreed that at some point, Brian Higgins and Brian Albert left the group and went to another room. Where did they go? Where did they go together? Another important point, Chloe was not upstairs. Brian Albert slipped in one of his testa, in testimony that he provided. Quote, "I was watching Chloe downstairs, monitoring her because of the other people in the house.

• 28:07Speaker 02

  She's not good with strangers." Remember that testimony.

• 28:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so here's the mention of Chloe, which was the Alberts' German Shepherd, and it brings us to the first theory that the defense puts forth, that Chloe attacked John. Now, according to the Alberts, Chloe was not aggressive or violent, but the defense tracked down evidence that proved otherwise.

• 28:28Speaker 03

  But importantly, Your Honor, you have been lied to by Brian Albert. In opposing our motion to get the animal control records, Mr. Albert's attorney told you that Mr. Albert's dog, Chloe, had no history of attacking human beings. Thank goodness you ordered the records, Your Honor, because we learned that was a lie. And to be clear, I do not believe for a second that Brian Albert's attorney, Greg Henning, would lie to this court. That leaves only one possibility. Brian Albert lied to him. Brian Albert told him that Chloe had never attacked a person. Brian Albert was desperate to keep these records secret from the defense and was willing to lie to keep them secret. The fact that those records have now been brought to court and revealed that Chloe

• 29:12Speaker 03

  attacked not just one, but two people in the past, sending them both to the hospital, is a major change circumstance. Brian Albert lied, which is powerful evidence of his consciousness of the guilt. You should have been able to consider that before you set bail in this case.

• 29:27Stephanie Harlowe?

  So we would find out that Chloe was not great with strangers, or other dogs, or even maybe people in general. Records from Canton Animal Control and the Canton Town Clerk showed that Chloe had attacked two separate people, both of whom had to be taken to the emergency room as a result of the attacks. A Canton resident claimed that in 2018, she was walking past the Albert's home with her golden doodle when Chloe aggressively attacked her dog, and she was unable to stop the attack until someone emerged from the house and shouted Chloe's name. Now, this woman then took her bloody dog to the vet, who said Chloe needed to be reported to Animal Control due to how severe the bites were. And the vet said that based on the severity and the location of the bites, it looked as if Chloe had been trying to kill the golden doodle.

• 30:13Stephanie Harlowe?

  So this woman then called the Canton Police, but she was told the animal control officer was out, and they didn't know when the officer would be back in. So she left her information with the police, and you know, like a brief synopsis of what had happened, and then Kevin Albert, Brian's brother, called this woman's husband and left a message asking how they could make this all go away. And remember, Kevin Albert is a Canton Police officer. So this woman claimed she became so scared of Chloe that she started carrying pepper spray when she walked past the Albert home from then on. Again, three months after John O'Keefe's death, Chloe attacked another dog and then attacked a woman who tried to interfere. This woman was injured along with another woman that tried to help. They had bite and

• 30:54Stephanie Harlowe?

  scratch marks on their hands and arms. They need medical attention. So after owning Chloe for seven years and after testifying about Chloe during the grand jury, shortly after testifying about Chloe during the grand jury and saying she was not violent and had no issues, Brian Albert rehomed the German Shepherd to another family in Vermont in May of 2022, the same month the defense began investigating evidence related to dog bite injuries. What do you think about Chloe?

• 31:22Derrick Levasseur?

  I do have some opinions on Chloe. I've done some research on Chloe and I'm gonna save it for my final thoughts. That's all I'm gonna say. It's my teaser. But, but I do have some opinions on her. I think it's important to know that per history, obviously, Brian Albert not putting that out there, not disclosing that information. I like the phrasing, consciousness of guilt, where you could look at it and say he's purposely doing this because he knows what actually happened and he's trying to prevent anybody from finding that out. But I do have something regarding Chloe, which is public information that I think puts, puts the whole Chloe thing in perspective.

• 32:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, so a lot of people are saying that, that the Alberts sent her away out of state to Vermont because they didn't want the defense to be able to compare Chloe's mouth to the marks on, on John O'Keefe's arm. But technically, if they wanted to, they could have subpoenaed the information of where Chloe had been rehomed to. They could have gone there and, and gotten those impressions. But I'll also say, I'm not even sure how valid or like legitimate that kind of comparison would be. Maybe the, you know, comparison would show that like the circumference of the marks matched Chloe's jaw or mouth. Yeah, maybe, but, but still not enough to prove.

• 32:46Stephanie Harlowe?

  Without a doubt that that these were marks from Chloe's mouth, I think. Alright, so we're going to hear a little bit more from Alan Jackson.

• 32:56Speaker 02

  We spent a long time talking about the compromised and altered and tampered and manipulated evidence, and now I want to switch and talk a little bit about the true facts in this case, because you did hear some true evidence and true facts. The Commonwealth presented about 67, maybe more, witnesses, and expended 30-plus days of trial and nine weeks of your life, maybe we're in the 10th week. For what? It should be relatively simple, right? The Commonwealth claims that Karen Reed pulled up to 34 Fairview, John got out of the car, she reversed into him and hit him, and then she drove home. That's four facts. It's just four facts, that's all it is. What evidence do they actually have to prove that that SUV ever hit John?

• 33:41Speaker 02

  The answer is none. They don't have any, there's no evidence whatsoever that Karen Reed's vehicle ever struck John O'Keefe, or that Karen Reed ever wanted to strike John O'Keefe. In fact, every single piece of material evidence in this case unequivocally proves the opposite. John went into that house, that SUV was not damaged by hitting John, and John's injuries did not come from being hit by a car. That's what the evidence actually shows. The Commonwealth knows that, and they've known it for a long time, and Proctor knows that. And because of that, the Commonwealth just resorts to character assassination and talking for weeks on end about the snow.

• 34:23Speaker 02

  Let's talk about what the real evidence actually shows, the unassailable science. Let's talk about the truth.

• 34:31Speaker 02

  Concerning John's injuries first, the Commonwealth's own medical examiner, Dr. Scorti Bello, could not conclude that John was hit by a car. Think about that. And she would not even say that it was a homicide. She told you without any dispute in this case, quote, "Evidence pointing toward one manner of death is no more compelling than evidence of a competing manner of death," end quote. Her words, not mine.

• 34:59Speaker 02

  She went on to say it's just as likely that he was punched and fell backward. His injuries are consistent with that. In fact, in her expert opinion, his injuries are consistent with a physical altercation, as she testified, but they are not, in her words, "not classical injuries from an auto-pedestrian accident." That by itself is reasonable doubt. But the evidence and the truth goes far further. We introduced you to not one but two thoroughly credentialed medical examiners, or medical experts, Dr. Sheridan and Dr. Russell, both of whom said John's arm injury is consistent with an animal attack.

• 35:40Speaker 02

  Dr. Russell studied, diagnosed, and treated a thousand, up to a thousand, animal wounds. She's an expert in animal wounds, and she was unequivocal. Those wounds are from an animal, likely a large dog, which means that John was attacked inside the home where Chloe was. There is no other possibility. And Dr. Sheridan, for his part, with thousands of autopsies, 13,000 autopsies under his belt, decades of experience as the chief medical examiner, who's triple-credentialed in anatomical, forensic, and neuropathology, he told you that John's injuries are inconsistent with a motor vehicle accident or incident. They're consistent, however, with a physical altercation.

• 36:24Speaker 02

  In layman's terms, the science proves John was beaten. That also is reasonable doubt and should end this case. But the facts and evidence don't stop there. Two of the most highly educated and highly qualified engineers you'll ever meet, Dr. Dan Wolf and Dr. Andrew Renshler, mechanical engineer and a biomechanist, they reviewed this case, they did testing, they did analysis, they evaluated the case scientifically. They were not hired by the defense, not by the Commonwealth, they're completely 100% independent of any party in this case, and they were equally available, by the way, to the Commonwealth. They could have called them.

• 37:08Speaker 02

  They explained that John's injuries are not, were not caused by being hit by Ms. Reed's SUV, and that the SUV was not damaged by coming in contact with John O'Keefe's body. That should end the inquiry right there. Both sides of the equation. From a physics, engineering, and biomechanical standpoint, they established that John O'Keefe was not struck by Karen Reed's vehicle, period. And that is yet another fact that establishes reasonable doubt and should put it into this case. So instead of calling the ARCA experts, which they had available to them, the Commonwealth chose to introduce you to Trooper Joe Paul. You'll remember his testimony.

• 37:50Speaker 02

  I think I'm being kind when I say that Trooper Paul's analysis lacked credibility. Trooper Paul lacks the experience, the education, the training, the background, and the knowledge to not only render opinions on these issues, but to even understand the issues themselves. He makes the absurd claim that John was hit on the elbow area of his arm by a taillight. He was spun to the left in a pirouette. His arm stayed on the light long enough for the shards of plastic to explode around him, scratching his arm even though he was wearing long sleeves, then projecting him 30 feet to the left, but not before making a stop to hit his head on either the curb or the

• 38:30Speaker 02

  pavement, before coming to his final resting place with his unbroken phone tucked neatly under his body. It's nonsensical. It borders on laughable. Compare that testimony to Dr. Dan Wolf and Dr. Andrew Rinsler. Both PhDs in engineering, both top of their field in accident reconstruction, both published peer-reviewed articles on the issues. Both men are highly sought after by the likes of national sports leagues and the United States Department of Defense, and these men are unrivaled in accident reconstruction. What did Dr. Rinsler say before he left the stand? This was even under cross-examination. He said that the physics and the science don't lie.

• 39:15Speaker 02

  His words were, "You can't deny the science and the physics." John wasn't hit by that car, period. The Commonwealth cannot explain John O'Keefe's injuries. They can't explain his head wound.

• 39:30Speaker 02

  How did he get the head wound if he landed on snow-covered grass and dirt? And by the way, before Mr. Lally gets up and says it, because I know he's going to, there is zero evidence before you, zero, that cold grass and dirt turns into ice or turns into concrete. Zero. They can't explain the injury above his right eye, that laceration. They can't explain his nose, they haven't even tried to. They can't explain the injury to his tongue, the laceration on his tongue. They cannot explain the injuries to the back of his hands, the bruises, and certainly they cannot explain the injuries to his right arm. But maybe most importantly, they cannot and haven't even tried

• 40:12Speaker 02

  to explain the lack of injuries on John's body from the neck down. Nothing. He was pristine. Not a bump, not a bruise, not a fracture, not a broken bone. Nothing to suggest that he was hit by a 7,000-pound SUV going 25 miles per hour. And what of that right arm? According to Commonwealth's Best and Brightest Trooper Paul, John absorbed the entirety of the collision, a whole collision, with that 3.5-ton SUV entirely with his right arm, launching him some 30 feet.

• 40:56Speaker 02

  But amazingly, the arm suffered no break, no fracture, and didn't even get a bruise. So how are those injuries properly explained? The evidence is simple. John got into an altercation. He was punched. He tried to defend himself by putting his hands up. He may have even scratched his own nose by putting his hands in front of his face to defend himself. His hands were bruised and covering up.

• 41:21Speaker 04

  Five minutes, Mr. Jackson.

• 41:24Speaker 02

  Thank you, Your Honor. As he continued...

• 41:29Speaker 02

  He got hit, a punch went through, and he fell to the ground, fracturing his skull. At some point during that altercation, the dog got a hold of him, and the dog was pulled away. Every single injury is answered. Every single injury is explained by that.

• 41:45Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, so this theory that John was basically attacked is connected to Colin Albert, Brian Albert's nephew, who was at the 34 Fairview Home that night. Now, the defense claims that they believe he was one of the men who John O'Keefe was attacked by, and during the trial, they sought to show that he was a violent and aggressive person who was always ready to jump into a fight.

• 42:07Speaker 05

  Well, Karen Reed's defense really turned up the heat in a way we haven't seen yet. Colin Albert was at the center of it all, and he maintained that he never saw John O'Keefe the night he died.

• 42:19Speaker 06

  Commonwealth versus Karen Reed.

• 42:23Speaker 05

  Colin Albert, nephew of Fairview Road homeowners Brian and Nicole Albert, back on the stand during a fiery cross-examination by Karen Reed's defense team.

• 42:32Speaker 06

  I do.

• 42:33Speaker 05

  The 20-year-old grilled about his family's relationship with the lead state police investigator on the case, Trooper Michael Proctor.

• 42:41Speaker 02

  Your family was close enough to the Proctor family such that you were a ring bearer in Courtney Proctor's wedding, right?

• 42:48Speaker 06

  Correct.

• 42:49Speaker 02

  And who's Courtney Proctor's brother?

• 42:51Speaker 06

  Michael Proctor.

• 42:54Speaker 02

  And is Michael Proctor in the photograph that you're looking at?

• 42:57Speaker 06

  Yes.

• 43:00Speaker 05

  The jury later shown this picture of Albert, taken about a month after O'Keefe's death. Albert claiming he slipped on ice, resulting in the injured knuckles.

• 43:09Speaker 06

  So I tried to brace myself with my right hand, and I ended up sliding a little bit down the driveway.

• 43:14Speaker 02

  You injured your right fist, just the top of the knuckles on your right fist when you fell down.

• 43:19Speaker 06

  Correct.

• 43:20Speaker 02

  Seriously?

• 43:24Speaker 05

  Reed's defense playing two videos of Albert for the courtroom.

• 43:27Speaker 02

  You indicated you're a [bleep] bro, right?

• 43:34Speaker 06

  Correct.

• 43:35Speaker 02

  Was that a threat?

• 43:38Speaker 06

  Yes.

• 43:40Speaker 02

  And then you said KO bang bang, right?

• 43:46Speaker 06

  Correct.

• 43:47Speaker 02

  What's KO mean?

• 43:48Speaker 06

  Knockout.

• 43:49Speaker 05

  Albert explaining the videos were taken years prior to the incident and that it was sent to members of a club hockey team.

• 43:56Speaker 06

  It was the girls in our friend group, a couple of the girls in our friend group, like hung out with them a few times. So like my, all my guy friends got a little salty about it. So that's why we kind of send videos back and forth.

• 44:08Speaker 05

  The Commonwealth bringing it back to the case at hand.

• 44:11Speaker 06

  At any point in time, did you see John O'Keefe at that house, come into that house, around that house at any point in time that you were there? Never.

• 44:18Stephanie Harlowe?

  So you saw the picture of Colin Albert's knuckles, right?

• 44:22Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes.

• 44:22Stephanie Harlowe?

  When they showed it?

• 44:23Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes.

• 44:24Stephanie Harlowe?

  Now, once again, I've never been in a fistfight. I've never hit somebody so hard that my knuckles are like bloody. Would his knuckles look like that a month after the incident at hand?

• 44:37Derrick Levasseur?

  I don't know. I mean, I, they could.

• 44:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  Really?

• 44:41Derrick Levasseur?

  I feel like the injuries would look a lot different if it was that far a month out. I mean,

• 44:45Stephanie Harlowe?

  I feel you'd be more healed, right?

• 44:46Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I mean, I know people are going to push back on that because that's not my field of expertise. I have been in a fight or two. My knuckles, you've seen my hands, my knuckles are still torn up from fights that I've been in before being a cop and then af, you know, during being a cop. I've got scars all over my hands. So I would expect them to be more healed by that point. If I'm being honest, I'm not trying to defend Colin, but that's what I would say.

• 45:08Stephanie Harlowe?

  I agree with you though.

• 45:09Derrick Levasseur?

  Okay, I just like I said, I think someone might be like, well, I've been in a fight and it took forever to heal because of the way my body heals, you know?

• 45:15Stephanie Harlowe?

  Maybe. I just, I, here's why I don't like this, because he's a young kid. I feel like, I just don't really know how much evidence of Colin being a dumb kid in videos or having scraped up knuckles, like relates to his possible involvement in beating someone so badly, they become unconscious and die. All right. I just don't. To me, it's more relevant, the fact that he and the Alberts in general were so close to the Proctor family, like, that's more compelling to me. And it does, once again, I know I'm gonna get pushback, but I'm trying to be unbiased. It does ring a little to me like, the defense is looking for a patsy. And Colin Albert, because of his prior issues with John O'Keefe, because of his presence

• 46:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  there, because that the timeline of him leaving the house doesn't really match up. It seemed like it was convenient, once again, for them to raise reasonable doubt. They're not there to prove who actually killed John, they're there to raise reasonable doubt that it was not Karen. And I really don't want to focus too much on Colin, because it's very likely that he just happened to be in the wrong place, wrong time, and now his entire life is being pulled out in court, and he has nothing to do with anything, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

• 46:31Derrick Levasseur?

  That's always the conundrum, I'm sure, for defense attorneys in cases like this, because if it's not your client, then who? And jury members are gonna be looking for that answer. And unfortunately, even though it's not their job, it's not Alan Jackson's job, or Yonetti's job, to figure out what happened, they do gotta propose some theories, and there's gonna be someone who's gonna be at the root of that theory, and unfortunately, it was Colin. Now, if Colin did it, well, then that just means Jackson and Yonetti are better at their job than the Mass State Police, right? But if they're wrong, it means you got this young person who is being accused of murdering someone and has nothing to do with it. But I would also say, Khloe's in the same boat.

• 47:13Derrick Levasseur?

  Khloe's also being accused of attacking someone, and maybe she didn't. So, yeah, I mean, listen, that's the problem here is...

• 47:20Stephanie Harlowe?

  Justice for Khloe.

• 47:22Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, justice for Khloe. No, I mean, if they did it, and that's what happened, then, like I said, spot on, good for them, they nailed it. But if they're wrong... You can't take it back. In the court of public opinion, I know there's a lot of people that believe Collins is responsible for John O'Keefe's death. And, and there's a real possibility he's not. But for the rest of our lives, and the rest of his, he's gonna be that person, regardless of the outcome of the trial, in the next trial, I mean. But if he's the guy, then you know, wow. Imagine if it turns out he is. This next trial, they're able to prove that even more.

• 47:56Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, I guess. I guess we'll see. But, um, all right. Now we're going to hear what the prosecution, in the form of ADA Adam Lally, had to say in their closing statements. And I'm not going to play too much of this for you, because like I said, this guy is just so incredibly boring. He starts off referring to the many first responders who Karen, who they say they heard Karen say, "I hit him, I hit him," right? That's obviously where he starts off. But he doesn't do it in a way where he's like, "12 first responders said they heard Karen." He was like, "John Smith said he heard Karen say this. Blair Lowes said..." You know, he just like goes through each one. It's just like, if you're trying

• 48:38Stephanie Harlowe?

  to put this jury to sleep, man, you, you did it. But, uh, so he starts off with that, and then he kind of continues on a little bit, and that's what you're gonna hear now.

• 48:47Speaker 05

  Throughout the course of this trial, you've heard a lot of purported evidence, uh, or questions of witnesses in an attempt to distract you from the evidence in this case. It's essentially defense by obfuscation. It's a three-card monitor. The facts and the evidence in this case are your card, they're the queen of hearts. And so what I want you to, or what the defense wants you to do is not look at that card. Look at anything else. Look at the movement, look at this person, look at that person, look at text messages, look at this. Don't pay attention to the facts and the evidence, because if you do, what it will, it will ineluctably lead you to is that the defendant is guilty of each of the three indictments before this court.

• 49:28Speaker 05

  The evidence and the facts of this case are for you, the jury to decide. Using your common sense, using your

• 49:36Speaker 06

  ...experiences as your guide through that as you go. 12:23 a.m. is when the defendant conducts a three-point turn on Cedar Crest and travels back toward Fairview. That's from Mr. O'Keefe's GPS native location data from his phone. Around the same time, at 12:23 and 12:24 is when you have that testimony from Ryan Nagel, Heather Maxon, and Ricky Dantono pulling into Fairview Road around the same time and pulling in behind the dark SUV. 12:25 a.m. is the last native location GPS data of John O'Keefe's phone. It's in that area between 32, 34 Fairview Road where his body is discovered the next

• 50:19Speaker 06

  time, uh, the next morning, in which there is no movement of that phone from that 12:25 a.m. period until Ms. Roberts then picks up the phone on the grass underneath Mr. O'Keefe's body sometime after 6 a.m. What you have up on the screen right now is that data, those plotting points that Trooper Barina was testifying about as far as the movement of the vehicle. Movement of the vehicle as it comes down. Cedar Crest passes by Fairview, reverses direction, and then comes down Fairview, moving up, moving up, moving up, as the witnesses described, eventually stopping in that area, the property

• 51:01Speaker 06

  line between 32 and 34 Fairview Road. Which happens to coincide with the vehicle control history database information from the Toyota Tech Street, which you now have up on the screen before you hear, indicating that following that three-point turn, approximately eight minutes after that, from Trooper Paul's testimony, as far as the mileage, 36 to 38 miles, matching up with the time that the vehicle is in front of 34 Fairview Road, that the vehicle travels in reverse in a straight line for 24.

• 51:39Speaker 06

  2 miles per hour for 62 and a half feet with a minor steering angle change, which the trooper indicated was consistent with a pedestrian collision. At 12:30 a.m., you have that second triggering event, eight minutes after the three-point turn, when the vehicle's in reverse at 24.2 miles an hour. 12:35 is when the defendant calls John and that's unanswered. 12:36 is around the time that the defendant's phone connects to the Wi-Fi at One Meadows Avenue, Mr. O'Keefe's home. 12:37 is when the defendant leaves this voicemail. John, I fucking hate you!

• 52:24Speaker 06

  So, within minutes of that vehicle's data, going 24.2 miles an hour in reverse for 62 and a half feet, the defendant leaves that voicemail, seething in rage, as she's screaming, "John, I fucking hate you!" 12:40 to 12:42, Ms. McCabe is texting Mr. O'Keefe. She tries calling Mr. O'Keefe, gets no answer. If you recall from her testimony around this timeframe, about 12:40, she was unsure whether the vehicle was actually still out front, or if it had gone at that point. But she was looking for John, because she had seen the defendant's vehicle in front of the house, and no one had come in. So she was wondering where her friend, Mr. O'Keefe, was.

• 53:08Speaker 06

  12:55, the defendant texts, "John, see you later." 12:59, the defendant calls, leaves another voicemail for Mr. O'Keefe. But somebody did know where Mr. O'Keefe was. The defendant knew exactly where he was. She had driven him there, she had struck him there, she had left him to die. 1:02 a.m., the defendant leaves another voicemail with no content. And then she texts, "John, your kids are fucking alone."

• 53:41Speaker 06

  1:09 a.m. The defendant texts, "John, I'm back in Mansfield. The kids are home alone." She's not GPS, you know, as far as the, it never disconnects from the wifi until the following morning. There's no indication that Ms. Reed left and went to her home in Mansfield at any point. 1:10 a.m. The defendant calls her parents. 1:11 a.m. She calls Mr. O'Keefe and leaves this voicemail.

• 54:08Speaker 05

  "John, I'm going home. I cannot leave you sitting here. I need to go home. You're fucking using me right now. You're fucking another girl. Keep sleeping next to me. You're a fucking loser. Fuck yourself."

• 54:24Speaker 06

  1:18 a.m. The defendant leaves another voicemail. Now about 1:43 or 1:45 a.m. is when Julie Nagel testified that they were leaving the house. And she sees a large black object on the lawn, near the flagpole, while leaving 34 Fairview Road. Doesn't think much of it at the time, isn't expecting Mr. O'Keefe or any body to be out on the front lawn.

• 54:47Stephanie Harlowe?

  So Derek and I were talking a little bit off the record just now and we brought up, we were talking about the accident reconstruction and then Derek said, you know, they're not going to have Trooper Paul do the next trial and I said, I was dying during Helen Jackson's closing statements because he was talking about Trooper Paul and he's like, "Let's just say he's less than reliable." He just keeps going on. I'm like, "Oh, man." The Massachusetts State Police are never going to live Trooper Paul down. Like this will be a black mark on their record. Trooper Paul and Trooper Proctor, the two Trooper Ps are going to be a black mark on their record until the end of time. One because he's a clown, the other because he's vile, so...

• 55:26Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I was saying they're definitely going to have, from what I've been seeing already with the motions, they're going to have...

• 55:32Derrick Levasseur?

  I guess they would call it their version of Arca coming in to evaluate the evidence. And I can tell you right now, no spoiler here, this expert is going to come to the conclusion that the injuries could have been caused by Karen Reed striking him, guarantee you, or they wouldn't be putting them on the stand. And they're going to come in with more credentials, for sure.

• 55:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  I hope so. Is it really not hard to do that?

• 55:54Derrick Levasseur?

  No, anything's an upgrade.

• 55:56Stephanie Harlowe?

  But yeah.

• 55:56Derrick Levasseur?

  You bring Chloe in, she'd be an upgrade.

• 55:59Stephanie Harlowe?

  Woof. Clay's closed.

• 56:02Derrick Levasseur?

  He's closed.

• 56:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  So, yeah, Lally's closing statements goes on like that for a while. And as I was watching, I genuinely was like nodding off. And I found-

• 56:12Derrick Levasseur?

  He's just not as charismatic as Jackson.

• 56:15Stephanie Harlowe?

  It's just, he doesn't know how to, he doesn't know how to package the information in a way that's-

• 56:19Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, it's his delivery.

• 56:21Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 56:21Derrick Levasseur?

  You have to be a showman. Alan Jackson, Yanetti, they're showmans.

• 56:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  A little bit, a little bit, or like a storyteller of some kind, like, it was bad. But I found this clip of Alan Jackson also listening to Lally's closing statements, and I was dying because he too looks like he's struggling to keep his eyes open. So, it's, it's quick, it's just a few seconds. But for those of you watching on YouTube, enjoy.

• 56:44Speaker 06

  7:50 in the morning is when Mr. O'Keefe is pronounced deceased at Good Samaritan Hospital. 4:13 to 4:20 PM is when the defendant's SUV is towed from her parents' house in Dayton. 5:20 PM is when the search team arrives in the area of 34 Fairview Road to conduct the search of evidence. 5-

• 57:04Stephanie Harlowe?

  He and Karen Reed are looking at each other like, this guy, is he done?

• 57:09Derrick Levasseur?

  Karen Reed, I will say this, she's got to stop the facial expressions.

• 57:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  She does not look likable. She, I know, I know.

• 57:14Derrick Levasseur?

  I mean, I've been doing my research, you got obviously a lot of clips that show the prosecution, the Commonwealth looking terrible, a lot of their witnesses. But they, when they keep the camera on Karen Reed in between some of these encounters and when they're breaking for sessions or doing something, they have it on her and she does some things that does not come off, like you had said, very likable.

• 57:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  No, I agree. And, you know, I'm kind of on both sides because-

• 57:42Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well behaved women rarely make history. No, I'm kidding.

• 57:44Derrick Levasseur?

  But hear me out. Can I finish that so I don't get canceled with it?

• 57:47Stephanie Harlowe?

  Oh, yeah.

• 57:47Derrick Levasseur?

  Because I know people are gonna be like, what? It doesn't matter if she's likable or not, but it goes back to what we just said about the lawyers. Showmanship, optics, it all matters, right? So the way you're sitting there, the reason you dress a certain way for court where you'll have these serial killers coming in there looking like they're

• 58:04Stephanie Harlowe?

  Choirboys?

• 58:04Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes, choirboys or, you know, CEOs or Fortune 500.

• 58:08Stephanie Harlowe?

  Tax accountants, yeah.

• 58:08Derrick Levasseur?

  It's about optics. So I will say-

• 58:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  That's why they're remember Jose Baez had, Baez, whatever, I hate him. He had Casey Anthony dressed like a Sunday school teacher. And like put her hair back in a bun and, you know, and she couldn't even stop from her smirks. And so I totally get it. I agree.

• 58:26Derrick Levasseur?

  And I'm sure for the next trial, they're gonna tell her, hey, listen, as we're learning what we want to do differently, keep it, keep looking forward, no reactions to what people are doing, you know, understand that there's a camera on you 24/7 and people are seeing that.

• 58:39Stephanie Harlowe?

  Karen Reed wears her emotions on her face. When she's disgusted by something, you know. When she's amused by something, you know. So it's really just about, I guess, trying to be, have more of a poker face. Where you're not the main attraction right now, the jury can focus on what's being said on the stand and they're not looking at you because you're, you're making a million, a million faces. It kind of reminds me of, what was the case we did with the dentist? Charlie Adelson, his mother, when, when she was in court, she did the same thing. She's like pulling faces, grimacing, laughing out loud, just stuff like that. It was, you know, but juries usually don't respond well to it, so.

• 59:19Derrick Levasseur?

  No, there was one I saw, and I'll never find it now, but again, you're going down the rabbit hole. It's like a video where they're breaking for lunch or they're taking some type of recess. And she like yells at Jackson, like she grabs him real quick and she's like pissed about something. And he's like, you could see him, he's like chill, you know, relax, so. There's definitely moments where he had to reel it in for her, but.

• 59:38Stephanie Harlowe?

  I mean, well, as we're, as we're going to talk about, she's paying them enough where if they did something she's not happy with, she has the right to pull them aside and be like, yo.

• 59:45Derrick Levasseur?

  Do you think she's still paying them?

• 59:47Stephanie Harlowe?

  Oh, yes.

• 59:47Derrick Levasseur?

  Interesting. You don't think that there's a fund for her or they're taking this on pro bono?

• 59:52Stephanie Harlowe?

  I mean, I think they're, I think they're trying, but she's, as we're going to discuss, millions of dollars in debt.

• 59:56Derrick Levasseur?

  Oh, wow.

• 59:57Stephanie Harlowe?

  From, yeah.

• 59:58Derrick Levasseur?

  See, I, I thought that at this point, because of the exposure, they were taking this on pro bono.

• 1:00:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  No, no, no, no.

• 1:00:04Derrick Levasseur?

  Wow.

• 1:00:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  Uh, yeah.

• 1:00:05Derrick Levasseur?

  Wow.

• 1:00:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right.

• 1:00:06Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, that, that pissed me off too, huh?

• 1:00:07Stephanie Harlowe?

  Right. So if I'm paying you this much and I'm like, I'm like, literally, I'm going into debt, you're going to do what I, you're going to do what I want you to do. If you made a mistake, you're going to know about it, but. All right. With closing statements done and out of the way, the jury was sent off with all they had learned during the nine week trial to deliberate on the fate of Karen Reed. And after five days, Judge Beverly Canone declared a mistrial after the jury returned and said that they were helplessly deadlocked or hopelessly deadlocked. Either way, they couldn't come to a unanimous decision. The jury foreman said that despite rigorous efforts, the panel could not reach a decision and some believed the evidence surpassed the standard of proof needed to convict Reed, while others felt the prosecution had not done enough to establish their case.

• 1:00:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  And as it turns out, according to a jury member who talked to WZTV anonymously, um, this jury member told reporter Christina Rex that the jury was unanimous in finding Reed not guilty of second degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death, but on manslaughter and the lesser included charges, the jury said the final vote was a quote, "soft nine to three with nine voting guilty." In response, David Yanetti, Karen's attorney, told reporters outside court that, quote, "We are happy with the jurors that have come forward out of good conscience. I think it speaks volumes that nobody had come forward to contradict what they've said, which was, she received two not guilty verdicts and they just weren't reported.

• 1:01:31Stephanie Harlowe?

  So we're looking forward to litigating this motion," end quote. So the motion in question he's referring to was the defense wanting the second degree murder charge dismissed. And ADA Adam Lally argued that given the length of the trial and the fact that the jurors had several early. ...days during the week, he didn't feel they had spent enough time deliberating. The mistrial was declared on July 1, 2024, and at the end of July, the Norfolk County DA's office expressed their plan to retry the case, and Judge Canoni proposed January of 2025 for the new trial start date. In court documents filed after the mistrial, Karen Reed's attorneys wrote that five jurors had come forward to report that they had found Reed not guilty of the two charges, and they

• 1:02:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  claimed they had a firm and unwavering 12 to 0 agreement on that. And Alan Jackson wrote, quote, "There was no manifest necessity for a mistrial as to those counts, and therefore, the double jeopardy protections of the federal and state constitutions require that those counts not be retried," end quote.

• 1:02:31Speaker 05

  The state Supreme Court heard arguments this morning in the Karen Reed case. Now Reed's defense is asking that two of the three charges against her at trial in the death of John O'Keefe be dropped. So we are standing by to learn what the judge is going to say. And joining us now, the justices, rather, are going to say. Court TV Crime and Justice correspondent Matt Johnson is with us. And Matt, you paid attention to that all-important hearing. Any new details come out of these arguments?

• 1:02:58Speaker 06

  Very fascinating case to watch right now, and this hearing was something unlike we have seen. This case now in the hands of the state Supreme Court there in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Karen Reed left court just a few moments ago with her attorneys. During the hearing, she sat with her mom and dad in the gallery as her appellate attorney argued that the judge, Beverly Canoni, made the wrong decision in July, back in July, when she declared a mistrial without polling the jurors to see if they reached a verdict on any of the charges. Here are the arguments this morning. Take a listen.

• 1:03:32Speaker 04

  The defendant never asked for a mistrial, and at minimum, secondly, we strongly ask this court to extend the Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, where you allow jury voir d'urors into the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment is as important as the Sixth Amendment.

• 1:03:53Derrick Levasseur?

  And a jury voir dire conducted by an experienced judge could determine whether or not there was a unanimous and final verdict of not guilty on two counts, one of which carries with it a life imprisonment.

• 1:04:08Speaker 06

  Did the judge have either the discretion or the obligation to ask the jury after the last note about continued deliberations or a verdict on any lesser included offense?

• 1:04:22Speaker 05

  No obligation, Your Honor. Perhaps as a matter of—

• 1:04:26Speaker 06

  Did the judge have the discretion to do so?

• 1:04:28Speaker 05

  Rule 27B is discretionary. The language of the rule itself consistently refers to what a judge or a jury may do. I know the defendant argues—

• 1:04:35Speaker 06

  So it's not inherently coercive?

• 1:04:39Speaker 06

  The judge has the discretion to can't be coercive, correct?

• 1:04:42Speaker 05

  Well, no, it's a matter of discretion.

• 1:04:47Speaker 06

  Now Judge Canoni already denied dismissing the charges of second degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash resulting in the death of John O'Keefe, which is what elevated the case to the high court there in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ahead of the second trial.

• 1:05:02Speaker 05

  So what is next now, Matt?

• 1:05:04Speaker 06

  All right, so now we wait for the Supreme Court ruling. Meanwhile, Commonwealth plans to retry the case. Second trial date set for late January of next year, but both prosecution and the defense have filed a joint motion to push the case to April. There have been a new prosecutor assigned to the case, and we understand that the next trial could look very different than the first one with a new crash reconstructionist, and also plans not to call lead investigator Michael Proctor. Now, after the next trial, Reed faces more legal troubles. The O'Keefe family has filed a wrongful death civil suit against Karen Reed and the bars that she was served at that night. The civil case has been postponed until after the second criminal trial wraps.

• 1:05:46Speaker 05

  Wow, a lot of things that will be different in that second trial. Matt, thank you so much for that report. And April 2025 could be one of the best trials. I don't think anybody thought it was going to go in January, and especially with this pending decision, depending on—

• 1:05:59Speaker 06

  And what the high court decides there. Yeah, it'd be interesting.

• 1:06:04Speaker 05

  They're asking a lot of great questions. I heard the defense attorney arguing Martin Weinberg that the second degree charge had multiple charges under it so that these jurors may have been looking at it vertically rather than horizontally when they said, we are deadlocked on the charges. So they are really pushing for this.

• 1:06:21Speaker 06

  Yeah. And frankly, from a common sense, you know, it would, it feels like there's a there there. And I remember when Judge Canone didn't, didn't bring the jurors in, I was thinking, why not? Why not get to the bottom of this one way or another?

• 1:06:37Speaker 05

  Maybe the justices will agree.

• 1:06:38Stephanie Harlowe?

  Basically, what they're saying there is the jury was never polled to see who, and we've seen this done in cases before. I've seen it done and we know what happens. Why wasn't it done in this case? Is it because Judge Beverly Canone, who's now insisting that she's going to be a part of the judge in the second trial? Is it because she didn't want to have to dismiss those charges, especially the charge that carries, as we heard Weinberg say, life imprisonment as a sentence?

• 1:07:12Derrick Levasseur?

  So I think it depends on where you fall. If you're someone who thinks Karen is innocent, you're going to say 100% they should have polled the jury and the judge should have said, you know what? Based on that, this is what we're doing. But if you're in the belief, and you've mentioned some things, not necessarily what you personally believe, that Judge Canone has something more in this and wants to be involved with it and maybe wants to continue this into a second trial where there's more notoriety or whatever, whatever the motive is behind it, that would be an incentive to continue it to another trial and not convene or poll the jury members to see if it was in fact 12 to 0. I will say if it was 12 to 0, then I completely agree. That's exactly what should have happened. But I will never, I don't think we'll ever know now, although some jury members have come out and said what they've, what they've said.

• 1:07:57Stephanie Harlowe?

  So the older gentleman you heard speaking in that last clip was attorney Martin Weinberg. He's a prominent Boston appellate lawyer. He joined Reed's legal team specifically for the purposes of this dismissal motion. And he requested that Judge Canone embrace the new information from the original jury and call them back to confirm the claims of 12-0. And I believe that the judge was like, nah, I'm all set. I'm not gonna do that. I'm not gonna do that. So the last I heard, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court now has the case in front of them. They're deliberating the requests made by the defense. They're not going to deliberate whether Karen is guilty or not guilty.

• 1:08:36Stephanie Harlowe?

  They're going to deliberate whether she should be retried on if it's even legal to retry her on this second degree murder conviction if the jury, I'm so sorry, I can't speak, if the jury voted 12-0. So that's where they're at. And as you would guess, all of these legal proceedings and needing to bring in other lawyers, this has come with a high price tag for Karen Reed. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Karen Reed revealed that she owes more than $5 million in legal fees, but she's not going to back down. Karen stated, quote, "There's nothing we're afraid of. Any question you have, I have answers for. I'm not backing down. As scary as a potential conviction is, I will go to jail for something I didn't do

• 1:09:20Stephanie Harlowe?

  before I plead out," end quote. According to Karen, she's now living off of her 401K and she had to put her Mansfield home on the market. She's listed at $849,000, hoping that the sale will help with her legal expenses. And I believe that the house did recently sell. Karen Reed has also been paying for a temperature-controlled storage unit, which is being used to store a carpet that was removed from 34 Fairview after Brian Albert sold the home in April of 2023. Karen and her defense team are hoping to swab the carpet for DNA, which would cost $5,000 for each DNA test.

• 1:09:54Derrick Levasseur?

  Yep, and it ain't cheap, we know that.

• 1:09:55Stephanie Harlowe?

  We do. And Brian Albert claimed that he and his wife had been planning to sell their home this whole time. They'd been planning to sell it since 2021. And at that time, he did some minor improvements to the house. Now... In 2018, Brian Albert allegedly paid to have the basement floors redone. But in a May 3 motion, Albert said that a realtor had urged him to replace the floors again to increase the home's value. So he had those floors ripped up again. And somehow Karen Reed got a portion of the carpet which had been in the basement where Karen and her defense team believe that John was attacked. So she got a hold of this carpet and it doesn't really make, people are saying, people who believe she's innocent. And this is a setup. They're saying, why would he have the flooring redone in 2018?

• 1:10:38Stephanie Harlowe?

  And then again, in 2023, when they sold the house, unless something had happened on that floor and you didn't want to sell the house, knowing that somebody could then come in and actually swap the floor for DNA or blood or things like that. So that's the, that's the thing with that.

• 1:10:57Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, it doesn't look great, but I think most people who know this, that sometimes you live in a house for 20 years and then before you sell it, you do all these upgrades that you never get to realize or use. And it's because of that exact reason. So based on the circumstances here, does not look good, of course.

• 1:11:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  But he'd already, he'd already replaced the flooring in 2018. So it's like, that's only a few years.

• 1:11:17Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, but, but it's also could be the realtor's nice way of being like, hey, that, that, that, you know, remodel you did in 2018? Yeah, it's ugly.

• 1:11:23Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, that carpet sucks.

• 1:11:25Derrick Levasseur?

  I know you guys liked it, but it's more of a, they usually use the phrase, you know, that's a, that's a specific taste. And we need something more neutral. But yeah, considering the circumstances, it looks horrible.

• 1:11:35Stephanie Harlowe?

  So I don't know if it's true or not, but allegedly, according to the internet, the carpet that was ripped up was really nice. And it was replaced in, in 2023 with some like janky ass floor. So, yeah, that's.

• 1:11:49Derrick Levasseur?

  I hope they did save that. I hope Karen does have it because that could hurt or help her case, right? If they do the DNA swabs and it comes back that there's nothing on there and he had all these injuries, especially the arm injuries, you would expect to find some type of blood in that carpet.

• 1:12:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  I mean, if they, if they do DNA tests on it and find nothing, I doubt we'll ever hear about that damn carpet again.

• 1:12:08Derrick Levasseur?

  But that's everybody. That's, you know, if it helps, though, you know, you'll hear it. If not, you won't.

• 1:12:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  And I don't even know if that's like a chain of custody issue to have her have the carpet in a temperature controlled storage unit under her name. Like it seems like, yeah. So I don't even know if that would be relevant.

• 1:12:23Derrick Levasseur?

  That could pose, that could pose some issues, yeah.

• 1:12:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  Or in court, yeah.

• 1:12:26Derrick Levasseur?

  For sure.

• 1:12:26Stephanie Harlowe?

  But that's where we're at now with the Karen Reed trial and John O'Keefe's justice, which it looks like honestly, he is not going to be getting any, anytime soon. He's not going to be getting justice anytime soon. I, I think that the tangled web that was weaved is far too dense to ever get to the bottom of it, but that's just my opinion. As far as final thoughts, I'mma let you go first. I'mma let you go first.

• 1:12:45Derrick Levasseur?

  Okay. So obviously I've been typing as we were doing this final episode. It was a couple of times you, you guys won't see it, but Stephanie had to repeat something she said to me because I was in the middle of typing, but I've taken a lot of time with this. I don't take it lightly how, how passionate people are about this case and how strongly they feel one way or the other. And I, I really tried to come into this investigation that we were doing with an open mind and understanding that people have already kind of locked in on their conclusions. I wanted to come on with my own without really letting outside parties influence them. Now I have been speaking with a lot of you. Some of you will probably acknowledge it in the comments. There's been emails sent back and forth with

• 1:13:29Derrick Levasseur?

  a couple of people. Some people who are pro Karen, some people are anti Karen, DMs and comments in the, on the YouTube page as well. And I've been listening to everyone, but also again, trying to focus on the facts because one thing we said at the top of this episode was there's the facts and then there's the interpretation of those facts. And depending on where you are, you could use those facts to support or negate an argument that you have. So for me to build my opinion on the interpretations of those facts, that's only going to lead me to the same location, the same destination that those people have already come to. So with that all being said, this is a first for me. I always take notes, but I had to actually

• 1:14:10Derrick Levasseur?

  kind of write out how I wanted to frame this, you know, my final thoughts because it's a lot. And I know if I say something wrong, they're going to come for me on both sides and you probably still will. So I wanted to write things down and kind of frame them. So at least going into it, I could make sure I covered what I wanted to cover and try to say it the way I've been thinking about it over the last six weeks that we've been covering. And I really did take a lot of time with this. So I hope you can at least respect the fact that I, I put forward the effort to try to come up to the most impartial, objective opinion that I could come to. So where do I come in? I wanted to look at the different possible scenarios here,

• 1:14:51Derrick Levasseur?

  both from the prosecution and from the defense. And there are many, many possibilities, but I wanted to keep it as simple as possible. So the first one being Karen struck John with the car and fled the area. Pretty simple, right? The second one would be John was killed by someone else at the party and there was a collaborative effort by the people at the party and multiple law enforcement officials to frame Karen for this crime. Right? That's your second prominent theory. And then the third theory, which I've kind of alluded to throughout this series is kind of a hybrid theory, which I don't think is new. I think other people have thought of this, but it would be that Karen hits John and the police and the people at the party

• 1:15:35Derrick Levasseur?

  believe that was the case. They knew that was the case in their minds. And so there was a quote wink and a nod given amongst everybody, including law enforcement. They had tunnel vision and they only focused on evidence that implicated Karen and witnesses embellished their stories in, in order to enhance the case against Karen while also separating themselves from any involvement, AKA self preservation. Right? So the Alberts, if they didn't do this and the McCabe's, they didn't do this, knowing that the, the defense was going to try to implicate Colin and, and them as well, Higgins, all that, in order to protect themselves and also enhance the case against Karen, they potentially embellished their statements under oath, AKA lied. Right? So when you look at these three scenarios, I wanted to talk about

• 1:16:20Derrick Levasseur?

  The actual evidence, at least the way I interpret it, which again, I will acknowledge is also an opinion because it's my interpretation of that evidence. One thing that I found interesting about tonight's episode, and this is why I was typing while writing, because as I'm making these, this, this list, my notes, I have to keep adjusting them based on what I hear and what I see. What was interesting tonight that I heard from Alan Jackson, because he's incredible at what he does, is when he was painting the picture that John O'Keefe entered Fairview, the Fairview residence. He said, he kept referring to the Apple Health data. He didn't refer to the GPS coordinates.

• 1:17:03Derrick Levasseur?

  And, and make no mistake about it, that's by design. Because Apple Health data isn't GPS coordinates. It's steps. It's up and down, it's, it's your heart rate, it's things of that nature. It's not going to show you where you are when you're taking those steps. But he's arguing that the steps recorded indicate he walked into the house, the 80 steps. So he's painting the picture, but he did not say, and I promise you, this is intentional, he did not say the GPS supports that because it doesn't. The GPS does not show him go into the house, other than for about a second, when it jumps around, but then it quickly readjusts back on the flagpole outside the house. So I wanted to just to bring that up because that was something that came up tonight.

• 1:17:46Derrick Levasseur?

  But my opinion comes from the GPS data and the Apple Health data, which lines up with mostly from what we're seeing as far as him being around the flagpole. And that GPS data supports from caring, initially missing Fairview. If you saw on the map that Lali put up tonight, she initially missed Fairview before having to make a turn around and come back, up to the point where at 12:32, allegedly, there's a reversal movement and John's movements and health data stop around the flagpole. So that's that. Then we get into the text stream data and this is a big point of contention and I think there's a lot of reasons for that. First and foremost, and I'm saying some of this and many

• 1:18:30Derrick Levasseur?

  of you who are, you know, really involved in this case already know this, but key cycles are not ignition cycles. And full disclosure, I was not aware of that. When we were first discussing key cycles, I felt that that was turning on the car. It's not. It could be just turning on the ignition into accessory mode, which I was unaware of. I also think there's a big distinction that some people, they kind of use the terms interchangeably, which is EDR versus text stream data. EDR is essentially your black box in a car. It's, it starts recording when there's some type of accident. Text stream data is recording all the time, which is what is being used in this case. But some people will say EDR instead of text stream, and that's not true. They're two

• 1:19:13Derrick Levasseur?

  separate things. And from what I can understand, there was no EDR data recorded. So let's just make sure we're talking about the right thing, which is text stream data. And I do think that these misinterpretations for some people could be the reason behind the, the debate over what you're, what you're interpreting, because if you look at the text stream data, a lot of this is on an Excel sheet that was inputted by a human being. So there's also room for interpretation there, but when you look at what you do have for text stream data, and I know you and I went back and forth on this, the three-point turn at 11 minutes in and the reversal at 19 minutes in aligned with the 1162 key cycle as the vehicle would have driven from CF McCarthy's, you know, waterfall

• 1:19:57Derrick Levasseur?

  area to Fairview. And then if you go off that assumption, 1163 key cycle would be the trip in the morning to the McCabe's house and back. And then 1164 through 1166 would be the drive out to Karen's parents' house in Dayton, where the car was stuck in the snow. And then 1167 would be Trooper Paul's testings. And how did I come to that conclusion? Because we went back and forth. I'm going to tell you what the, what the deciding factor for me was. When you look at the data, when you look at the text stream data, there is a 36 mile odometer difference. During those cycles. And if you retrace Karen's movements from CF McCarthy's to Fairview,

• 1:20:39Derrick Levasseur?

  out to the McCabes, back to Dayton, it's approximately 36 miles. And I could just not get to a place where the 36 mile odometer reading changing could be from the tow truck driver slipping and trying to get the car up on the tow truck, spinning those tires equivalent to 36 miles. So to me, the 36 mile odometer difference during those initial key cycles from 1162 to 1166 would align with the travel that we know took place for Karen Reed, as far as those different locations that she went that evening. So that's, that's where I came from on the key cycles. Then you have the broken taillight. And by the way, I'm going to have another version of this. This is just scenario number one here.

• 1:21:25Derrick Levasseur?

  So I'm not saying this is where I am. This is scenario number one. For the people who believe Karen's responsible, these are some of the arguments you're going to make. I want to make that clear. So you have the broken taillight and the fact that the taillight was embedded in John's clothing. You also had DNA and hair on the car. Again, highly up for debate, but that's what it is. How it got there, your guess is as good as mine, but the facts are the facts. It was there. And the taillight being embedded in John's clothing, to me is, is not, not good for the defense. And by the way, with all this being said, and this will be my final point on this first scenario, is it wasn't only random people that believe Karen Reed could have hit John O'Keefe.

• 1:22:09Derrick Levasseur?

  Karen Reed herself said multiple times that she believed she could have hit him. Now, I know, again, that's up for debate, especially when you consider the source of who's saying it. We talked about a bunch of people and there may be some people in this case who would have a reason to lie. But I am of the belief that when you start to expand your scope for conspiracy, and you start to consider that firefighters and EMTs and paramedics are also going to perjure themselves under oath for the sake of a cop they don't know, it's a big risk. And I don't see the reason why they would jeopardize their freedom and their future in doing so. So when you think about it-

• 1:22:45Stephanie Harlowe?

  Because it's a he said, she said thing. Like there's, you know, they're gonna say, "She said this," and Karen Reed's gonna say, "No, I didn't." But they're also gonna say, "Well, you're on trial for murder. Of course, you're gonna say that."

• 1:22:55Derrick Levasseur?

  I'm so glad you said it that way because there's a lot of people who said it, but I wanted to focus on someone that I don't know, but the way it was conveyed makes it to me more believable. And that's, and I hope I'm saying his name right, Timothy Natal. He's a Canton firefighter and paramedic, and he was one of the first people to treat O'Keefe when he first arrived. And he testified that when he asked Karen if she knew who John was, she responded, quote, "I hit him, I hit him." Now, I want to make it very clear here. He didn't say, "Oh, it was Karen Reed who said that." His exact words were, "The woman with blood on her face said that she hit him." And it was Officer Seraph, another first responder, who said, "Yeah, the woman who

• 1:23:35Derrick Levasseur?

  had blood on her face was Karen Reed because she was attempting to perform CPR on John O'Keefe." So two different people saying the same story from different perspectives. And when there's smoke, there's fire. Now, if you're in the belief that all of these people are all lying, then that's fine. I'm not gonna be able to convince you otherwise. But I feel like you have to start, when there's multiple people saying it, I think there might be some truth to it, especially again, as you expand the scope of people who don't necessarily have a lot of skin in the game, saying the same thing over and over. So that's the Karen Reed hit John O'Keefe and left the area. That's that scenario. Now, I will say this before I continue on to the next scenario,

• 1:24:17Derrick Levasseur?

  which is the one that Karen Reed did not do it. And I think with the audio you played tonight, and we've heard it over the whole series, I don't think it's up for debate that Karen Reed had been drinking that night, more than likely was extremely intoxicated. She was clearly upset with him, very upset with him. That's not up for debate. So in that moment, could something have happened that she didn't want to happen, or that was an accident? Absolutely. And I will say right now, before I continue on to the next scenario, if you're in the camp that you believe Karen Reed did it-

• 1:24:49Derrick Levasseur?

  There's no way she intentionally did this. There's no way she intentionally did it. And if she did do it, she wasn't even sure if she did it. Because why would she be calling him and saying those things after the fact? If she truly knew that she had already hit him? You could argue that she did it as an alibi. That's a shitty alibi to make because she was actually creating motive, not an alibi. So I don't think she knew she hit him, even with all the things that I just said. So I want to, I want to qualify that. Next scenario. This is obviously a big one. And I wanted to entertain each of these scenarios with the same amount of respect. And, and look at them as they're completely possible and, and to look at the facts of what they are. So.

• 1:25:31Derrick Levasseur?

  If we look at the scenario of John was killed after Karen left. There are a lot of questions and, and to me, just to start. The most compelling evidence being the injury to his arm, but let's go into some more of the other things. First off, Proctor's text messages. We talked about it at length. I'm not going to elaborate on it much more unprofessional at minimum. And it does set the tone for the entire investigation as we said in this very episode. Here's the guy in charge of proving whether you committed a crime or not. And he can't stand you and thinks you're a piece of shit. And he's making fun of your medical conditions, calling you a derogatory term. Basically saying you're fucked before even conducting the investigation.

• 1:26:15Derrick Levasseur?

  How do you know she's fucked if you haven't done the case yet? So just to start right there. We were destined for failure right from that with that guy being the, the, the top investigator on this case. And then you add on to that, the lack of investigation, the lack of searches, the usage of solo cups. The documenting and photography that was not done when it came to evidence, making sure there were multiple officers around. To, you know, collect this evidence so that you could have people document and report what was happening so that. Different things couldn't be brought into question later, searching the Albert's home. All of these things not being done, extremely hindered this case at minimum.

• 1:26:56Derrick Levasseur?

  And if you're in the conspiracy camp, looks as if it was done this way intentionally. Looks as if it was done this way to make sure that the guilt wasn't pointed at the people who actually committed the crime. I get it. I hear you. I see where you're coming from.

• 1:27:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  Can I interject before I forget?

• 1:27:13Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, of course. I've been saying a lot, so interject whenever you want.

• 1:27:15Stephanie Harlowe?

  Both things could be true at once. There could be people, actors in this case, who did do things intentionally to muddy the water, while there still could not be a conspiracy.

• 1:27:26Derrick Levasseur?

  Correct, which is my hybrid theory.

• 1:27:28Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, yeah, okay. Your hybrid theory, like Linkin Park.

• 1:27:31Derrick Levasseur?

  Completely agree, right? So, let's continue on with the idea that this was a conspiracy, right? You have Colin's timeframe is a little off. You had Chris on the stand. We watched that testimony. It's a little wishy-washy when Colin got home. Is it just, you know, lack of memory or intoxication? Or is there more to it? At minimum, reasonable doubt for sure. Then you have this 227 search that's still in question, how cold, you know, hose cold. We talked about it at length. You know, I'm not going to go too deep into it. I'll talk about it in a second. But we have the 227 timeframe where this search was allegedly conducted. I'll get into that in a minute. Then we have the injury to John's arm, which I've talked about. I'm going to talk about it more in a second.

• 1:28:14Derrick Levasseur?

  Then we have Arca. Now, this is where I'm kind of leaving my methodology to evaluating this case, because Arca is giving an opinion, right? And we're going to talk about that as well. But they were very credible, very, they came off very believable. I'll put it that way. Then you have the 236 Wi-Fi connection as well, where there's a very small window of Karen leaving at 12:32, being connected to the Wi-Fi at 12:36. Very small window where this could have occurred. I'm with you guys there. Then you have the video of Karen backing out of John's garage and striking John's car at 5:07, right? That's also something that's very compelling, a very strong argument that the damage to her taillight occurred there and not at the crime scene.

• 1:28:59Derrick Levasseur?

  Then you have Brian Higgins destroying his phone.

• 1:29:02Stephanie Harlowe?

  He's the shadiest figure in this.

• 1:29:04Derrick Levasseur?

  He doesn't look good at all. Again, this just paints the picture that there was conscious efforts attempted and taken to avoid a proper investigation, right? And then finally, although you and I debated it a lot and kind of, you know, disagreed on it, but that's okay. I'm looking at it from this perspective. Lucky Loughlin, the plow driver, I know the defense is very high up on him. They believe the fact that he did not see anyone on that lawn is highly important in this case and suggested that John O'Keefe was not on the lawn at the time when he passed by. Again, it's his perspective. I heard, I have heard people push back on Lucky Loughlin saying even at court, he admitted that he has, he has poor vision and he has struggled seeing long distances.

• 1:29:47Derrick Levasseur?

  So if you're, if you're someone who's in, you know, the Karen Reed it camp, that would be your argument to that. So those are the main things to me as we covered this case that I felt were compelling and very strong for the camp of this is a conspiracy and that this was done in order to frame Karen Reed. So we already have what I said about Karen being guilty and the factors supporting that. Now I've given you the factors supporting the idea that Karen was framed and that John O'Keefe was killed by someone at that party, but let's dive into the facts of what happened at that party and, and the evidence that's to support the idea that John was killed after Karen left. There's a lot here that we could talk about. I tried to keep it specific.

• 1:30:31Derrick Levasseur?

  So first off, Arca, Arca was provided a limited amount of information. And ultimately their interpretation of that information was, was conveyed to us. They basically said, hey, based on what we were given, this is what we have. And if you listen to what they said in some of the documents I was looking at. They actually said that the injury to John's arm was highly improbable, quote, highly improbable if he was wearing a jacket. And as we know now, John wasn't wearing a jacket. He was not. So their determination was based on if he had more clothing on, which he didn't have. The second thing, the 227 search, AKA the Celebrite report.

• 1:31:15Derrick Levasseur?

  I have gone back and forth with so many of you in the DMs and it starts off cordial and then it gets a little heated and then I just stop because you guys want to hear my opinion and I support it with something and you're like, yeah, but you're an idiot.

• 1:31:28Derrick Levasseur?

  I had to stop doing that. But for me, there's different interpretations of this Celebrite report. So what can I do? Go to the source. Who's the source? Celebrite. Who's the representative for Celebrite? Ian Whiffin. What is Ian Whiffin saying? He is saying that the timestamps do not reflect when the search was conducted to the point where going forward, they've had to remove those timestamps because so many quote unquote, experts were misinterpreting those timestamps. So if you do a Celebrite report now, they're no longer there.

• 1:32:02Derrick Levasseur?

  Depending on your opinions of Ian Whiffin, you can come to your own conclusions. I'm going off the guy who's in charge of the report that's being analyzed by the expert.

• 1:32:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  Listen, he could be part of the cover up, okay?

• 1:32:12Derrick Levasseur?

  He could be. He could be. One other point, and this is a minimal one, but I do think it's important when we're talking about seconds. You and I talked about this 1236 connecting to the wifi, right? And I had argued that the drive could be made in four minutes. If you had a sense of urgency, if you weren't going the speed limit. But also when we talk about 1236, because it's so important, was it 123601? Or was it 123655? We may not have that information, but it's important when we're talking about minutes.

• 1:32:43Stephanie Harlowe?

  That's a full minute, yeah.

• 1:32:44Derrick Levasseur?

  Being the difference between being able to connect and not being able to connect. So it could be up to five minutes that she made that, right? I just wanted to point that out. But all that being said, there's. There's a couple of big points that I want to make. I want to talk about the dog bite, because this was fascinating to me, and I saved it for one of the last things I wanted to say, as far as the evidence, because you didn't hit on it here, and I was waiting to see if you did, and maybe you'll have some insight into it, but I want to talk about Chloe, because I agree with everybody who says those injuries look like they could be from a dog, and I'm not an expert, but it does look like a large dog could have torn up his arm and made those injuries. As a layman sitting here, I agree with you. However,

• 1:33:29Derrick Levasseur?

  if I'm reading this correctly, two swabs were taken from that injury and sent off to a California lab to be tested for dog DNA, and Terry Soon, a forensic scientist from UC Davis, stated that, quote, "There was absolutely no canine DNA found." However, this is important, there was pig DNA found, possibly from food.

• 1:33:55Stephanie Harlowe?

  Or from like a chew toy, or like one of those like rawhide things.

• 1:33:59Derrick Levasseur?

  Whatever you want to go with. Here's the problem with that. The defense stated that the reason there was zero canine DNA found was because the samples were degraded or contaminated, and yet where to believe that even though they were degraded, they were able to find either remnants of food from an animal that John ate, or a chew toy, right? Like a dog bone, or something like that that contained pig in there. But with that vicious of an injury, with all those cuts, not a single trace of canine DNA? To me, and this is going to piss some people off, I think that rules out Chloe. I don't see how you would have the pig DNA and not a single ounce of canine DNA anywhere on that vicious cut.

• 1:34:42Stephanie Harlowe?

  Maybe Chloe is part of the conspiracy, and she's a pig dressed up as a dog.

• 1:34:48Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, Terry Soon could be in on it. Terry Soon could be in on it as well. But that's where I line up on the dog DNA. I wasn't aware of this, but to me, this is something that's not highlighted by the defense for a reason. The whole Chloe idea, I don't see with the saliva and everything that would be going on in a dog bite, you have zero canine DNA? Not even Chloe's DNA, but just canine DNA in general? That's hard to believe for me. I don't know. How do you feel about that part, just in and of itself, when you saw that?

• 1:35:19Stephanie Harlowe?

  I personally never thought that Chloe attacked John.

• 1:35:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  If anything, if anything, I thought that it was possible that whatever happened to John happened and then he was laying there and then they let Chloe out because Brian Albert did testify that when he got home at some point after getting home, he let Chloe out before he put her in the basement. And while she was out, maybe she came upon John's body and was almost like trying to like save him or wake him up or even play with him and grabbed his arm and was like, you know, like dogs do. And that's where those marks had come from.

• 1:35:57Derrick Levasseur?

  Those are pretty bad, those marks.

• 1:35:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, he would have still been alive at that point, right? Because he died mainly from, from the hypothermia. He would have been unconscious but alive. And maybe she was trying to like, thought he was playing dead, you know, was trying to like rouse him, like, come on, dude, what are you doing here, lying here? It's cold, get up, let's go. That, I never thought that like, they were beating John up and then they were like, Chloe, get him. And then Chloe was like, yeah, I'm in on this. I'm, I'm part of the gang. Like, I, I just don't, I maybe I give animals far more credit than humans. I, in fact, I do.

• 1:36:27Derrick Levasseur?

  No, I mean, the dog could have been involved. I thought it was a pretty viable theory, but when I read this, I said, wow, zero? No trace of canine DNA? So that was a problem for me. The final point I want to make on this, and this is, this is my opinion, this is speculative, I have nothing to support this, and this is trying to analyze human behavior and how I would react. When you think about the people that were at that home, and when this incident would have occurred, right? Right around 12:30, 12:45, something around there. If you believe that they're all involved with it, there's no way at that point when this is all going down, that they would have known at that time that Karen Reed's car data would have lined up, or that Karen Reed would later that morning break her taillight

• 1:37:08Derrick Levasseur?

  on John O'Keefe's car, or that even Proctor would be the detective assigned to lead this investigation. That doesn't happen. Somebody's on call that night, there's a lot of factors that could play into it. There's no guarantee that you're going to get a certain detective. And yet, we're supposed to believe that a bunch of cops that were in this house. Decided to risk it all by leaving a dead man, someone they killed on their front lawn, instead of dumping him somewhere where he would be found somewhere else or never found at all. I know that's a little crass, but that's the reality. If, if we were responsible, you're never finding that body. I would not leave him on my front lawn so that our, our house and everybody around it is automatically going to be considered a suspect.

• 1:37:52Derrick Levasseur?

  Now, again, that's speculative on my part. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but just as a human being looking at this and as a former cop, that's where I'm sitting. So where does that leave me? This is my final thoughts after going over all that. To me, all scenarios are still on the table, including Karen Reed striking John. I still think that's very plausible and I, and actually if you push me, I think the hybrid theory that I mentioned earlier before going over all this is still the most plausible. They believe that Karen Reed did it. They had some initial evidence to support it and they disregarded anything that didn't fit that narrative. Law enforcement, witnesses, et cetera.

• 1:38:33Derrick Levasseur?

  They were all in on it and whether it was for self-preservation or it was because they didn't like Karen. They had the initial information and they decided to get tunnel vision on that and not focus on anything else. With that being said, when it comes to this first trial, Karen Reed should have been acquitted. There's no doubt in my mind. The mistrial saved the prosecution's ass in this one. That's where I stand on it. And if there's ever to be any chance that Karen Reed is held responsible, if she is, if she is actually responsible for this, the prosecution needs to get their heads out of their ass because if they don't come back with some incredible experts to combat,

• 1:39:15Derrick Levasseur?

  people like Arca, um, they're going to get their asses handed to them again. And they're already in an uphill battle because they, there's no way to forget what happened in the first one. And I think it's more than likely that even with. The different things that may come to light in the second trial, there's still so much doubt because you can't change what was done in the initial investigation. And all the defense has to do is reiterate that. And so if you made me guess, I would say that more than likely Karen will be acquitted in the next trial. Unless there's something that is taken from the data that wasn't taken the first time. That makes it clear cut that this is the only thing that could have happened. Overall, where do I stand? This is a black eye on law enforcement.

• 1:40:00Derrick Levasseur?

  It's a lack of professionalism. It hurts every single man and woman out there working the streets today. I'm absolutely disgusted by the comments that were made by Trooper Proctor. I'm disgusted by the fact that his superiors didn't hold him to the standard that he should have been held to. And it doesn't represent all of law enforcement. And then when you think of the lack of investigation, just on a surface level, that's not what we're supposed to do. We don't convict someone and then carry out the investigation. We follow the breadcrumbs and see where they lead us. So for me, I want justice for John O'Keefe. I think if we're looking at a scenario where this was a tragic accident, that's how it's going to end because I don't think we're going to get a situation where

• 1:40:45Derrick Levasseur?

  someone is arrested and convicted of a crime against John O'Keefe, whether that's Karen Reed or Colin Albert or one of the other Alberts. I just think the case is too far gone for that to be the outcome. I wish that weren't the case. I wish John and his family would get the justice they deserve. But I think at this point, it's probably too late.

• 1:41:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, and I mean, I'm going to keep my final thoughts short because

• 1:41:08Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, I kept mine pretty short.

• 1:41:09Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, I mean, I'm going to keep them real short because at this point.

• 1:41:13Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, you've been, you've kind of laid it out this whole, that was kind of my chance to respond to the six episodes. So I was long winded there, but I hope that shows how much I cared about trying to get this one right and accurate for at least me. Not that I know anything you guys don't know. It's just an opinion. Everybody has one, but I wanted to really put my best foot forward.

• 1:41:33Stephanie Harlowe?

  I'm really looking forward to the second trial. Because at this point, I can't even reach a conclusion based on anything that we've seen. The fact is, the accident reconstruction was very important. Probably the most important part of this for the prosecution.

• 1:41:54Stephanie Harlowe?

  The accident reconstruction dude like and and honestly the way Trooper Paul laid it out impossible nothing he said makes sense so therefore I don't trust anything he said and the prosecution's accident reconstruction is useless to me as far as the investigation goes also a huge you know puzzle piece of this I don't trust anything that Michael Proctor has to say or anything that comes from him this is not my fault this is his fault so I'm really looking forward to the next trial because I hope they do bring in an accident reconstructionist who has a ton of experience who has a ton of education on this who is like the smartest person of accident reconstructionists and if

• 1:42:39Stephanie Harlowe?

  he can or she can lay it out and show hey this is how this happened and this is the evidence on John O'Keefe and the evidence on Karen Reed's SUV of how this SUV impacted this man and led to him getting this blunt force trauma which then led to him dying of hypothermia I will sit right here in front of you and say yeah that actually makes sense and now Karen Reed hitting John is the most viable explanation because you can prove to me physically that her car came in contact with his body at this point we have eyewitnesses who were there that night who saw Karen Reed's SUV who saw that she was the only one in it who saw that John O'Keefe wasn't in it we're not going to sit here and assume that Karen

• 1:43:24Stephanie Harlowe?

  Reed would go and hit John and then park back on the street and sit there for a few minutes before wondering what to do according to the prosecution's own statements she threw her car in reverse hit him and then drove off so how is John O'Keefe not in the car when these people are driving past it and when they see they saw him in the car when she pulled up they didn't see him after What happened to John O'Keefe? I don't know. If it wasn't Karen, what could it have been? Could he have been drunk? Maybe she pulls off and he's standing out there for a while, talking to himself or waiting before he goes in the house. He slips on something and hits his head and then die. Who knows? Who knows?

• 1:44:06Stephanie Harlowe?

  But if an accident reconstructionist in the second trial can show me that Karen's car SUV made impact with John's body, I buy it. It makes the most sense. However, you will never convince me that she did this intentionally, which is what the prosecution is putting forward. That's ridiculous. That's absolutely ridiculous. She was pushing him for more commitment. She wanted more from him. And if he's not going to give it to her, I'm gonna say something maybe a little inflammatory. Karen Reed seems like the type of person who falls hard, feels a lot, is very sensitive, is very emotional.

• 1:44:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  She's not gonna kill him to get back at him. She's going to be forever the perpetual victim who bent over backwards for him, did everything possible for him, his niece and his nephew, and it still wasn't enough for him. And that's the story she's going to live after this relationship ends. She doesn't want to be the person who killed him. She wants to be the person, she wants to be the one that got away. Okay? The one that he always regrets having and losing. That is what Karen Reed would have wanted her story to be had she and John parted ways. Or maybe they break up and then he realizes how good she was and they come back together like they had in the past, right? They parted ways in the past, they found each other again.

• 1:45:32Stephanie Harlowe?

  Karen Reed is not this person who's like, I'm gonna kill this dude and that's how I get back at him. No, she wants him to live with the absence of her in his life so that he can see how much she brought to his life. She doesn't want to kill him. If she hit him, it's because she was drunk and pissed and it was an accident. But that is still, you know, but that's still something she would have to face, you know, repercussions for. And I'd have no problem with that, but you have to show me with evidence that that car impacted him, the way that Trooper Paul described it, where, "Oh yeah, she hit him with the car and then he did a pirouette and then the broken glass of the taillight cut his arm."

• 1:46:14Stephanie Harlowe?

  Absolutely not. It's not possible. I'm not an engineer. I'm a crash reconstructionist, reconstructionist. I'm not even Trooper Paul, okay? He knows way more about this than me and he knows nothing, it seems. However, just based on like, logic, John's arm is not going to break the taillight. The taillight's going to break John's arm. So, I don't, I don't possibly see how it happened this way. So, the prosecution's going to have to not only show that Karen Reed hit John O'Keefe, but how John sustained the injuries that are on his body. How did those cuts and, and, and marks happen on his arm? Because it's, it damn sure was not the taillight, okay?

• 1:46:54Derrick Levasseur?

  See, I think it could be. And I'm not, I don't have anything to prove it, but I think without the jacket being on, I think that those marks could be from, from the taillight. But, to your point, it still lines up. I mean, the fact that, we don't know at this point, I don't think we're going to ever know. I just don't. Because what's going to happen, and I've said it in the series, Arca, whoever's going to come back and say those injuries could not have been caused by the vehicle. Point blank. I can tell you right now that's going to happen in the second trial. And guess what? Prosecution's going to have someone who says, "Yes, those injuries could have been caused by the vehicle." And the reality in this case is like every case. There's always two experts, and I can guarantee you that even though they're an expert, one of

• 1:47:39Derrick Levasseur?

  them is wrong. But they're both experts, Derek, that's right. But they're still wrong. One of them, they can't both be right if they're, if they're on, if they're on opposite sides of the fence. So, even though they're both qualified as experts by the court, one of their interpretations is inaccurate. And it's up for you to decide who you want to believe.

• 1:47:59Stephanie Harlowe?

  Or both could be, honestly.

• 1:48:00Derrick Levasseur?

  Or they both could be wrong. Exactly. It's a great point.

• 1:48:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  They both can't be right, but they both definitely could be wrong.

• 1:48:06Derrick Levasseur?

  They both can't be right. So that's just a basic binary way of looking at it. There's no way that both experts are right. And so what that usually reverts back to is confirmation bias. If you believe that she's innocent, you're going to fall with the expert who says it's not possible. And if you believe she's guilty, you're going to fall with the expert who says that the injuries are possible from the vehicle. And that's where we're going to fall. That's where this is going to come down to, but our opinions are not important. The juries are. Whatever they come to, that's where we're going to fall. I just don't see you getting a jury to convict her of any crime, never mind second degree murder. Like, good luck with that. Did I cut you off? Did you have any other final things? Because there was one more thing I wanted to say not related to the case.

• 1:48:51Stephanie Harlowe?

  I mean, no, I think honestly, that's, that's pretty much where I stand. I wait to see if the prosecution does better in the second trial because they, to me, and obviously to the jury, were kind of unable to prove that that SUV made impact with John's body.

• 1:49:08Derrick Levasseur?

  Correct. Because the EDR did not get triggered.

• 1:49:10Stephanie Harlowe?

  If, if, if they were able to prove that, this would pretty much be open and shut. Doesn't care about the Apple data, about the fricking time, about the fricking snow or the grass. None of that would matter. If, if they were able to prove that. And honestly, given that you had the body and you had the car, and then apparently you fricking puzzle pieced the, the damn taillight back together. This should have been a pretty cut and dry.

• 1:49:34Derrick Levasseur?

  It should have been a slam dunk. Yeah.

• 1:49:36Stephanie Harlowe?

  Black and white, easy to prove thing that that SUV came in contact with his body.

• 1:49:40Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah. The one thing I will say with the EDR, which is triggered by an accident, I will say talking to people and looking into it, a lot of times with pedestrian involved accidents, the EDR is not triggered. Not all the time. Depends on the impact and where it is. But it does not always trigger. Just wanted to point that out. Um, the final thing I wanted to say, and it's something I said a few episodes ago. I do understand the, the passion and the conviction behind this case because I think when it comes to everybody, especially in the Free Karen Reed camp, the problem here is not only this case, it's the, the fact that you're sitting there, looking at these, the facts of this case and saying, how is this possible that they did this poorly of a job?

• 1:50:24Derrick Levasseur?

  These are supposed to be the best of us. They're supposed to be the objective impartial, you know, human beings who come in here regardless of your race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, they are supposed to be better than us and they're supposed to come in here and represent what we should all strive to be, which is our law enforcement officer who doesn't see anything but the facts and doesn't judge people based on their own personal opinions. And what you saw in those text messages was the exact opposite. And we know that Trooper Proctor is not an anomaly. There are other officers in this country that are just like him.

• 1:51:06Derrick Levasseur?

  And the fear amongst everyone is that you could be in a situation where you get a Trooper Proctor and you become Karen Reed and you're not given a fair shake. And I feel like a lot of the community has taken it upon themselves to hold them accountable because they want to prevent this from happening to get to them or anybody else they care about. And to me, that's what's most important in this case because as a former police officer, I couldn't agree with you more. We are on the same page. I may have worn a badge, you may not have, but we both agree on this issue. We want to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard that is almost unachievable,

• 1:51:50Derrick Levasseur?

  but that will deter the bad apples from getting the fuck out. We don't want you here. Go away, find another job. We are the same on this.

• 1:51:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  We don't want you to reflect on all of us, yeah.

• 1:52:01Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, we are the same. Do not look at me as being on one side and you on the other. I feel the same way as you do. I have a lot of friends and family members who are not police officers who could find themselves in a similar situation. And I don't want that. So, understand, although I may believe it's still possible Karen Reed struck John O'Keefe. The premise and the core of what I think is really the issue here, we are on the same team. I promise you of that, we're on the same team. And that was, that was the last thing I wanted to say.

• 1:52:30Stephanie Harlowe?

  And I don't think it's impossible that Karen Reed struck John O'Keefe. I don't think it's impossible at all. In fact, it makes the most sense. But if it makes the most sense, and if it was that easy to prove and that black and white, why couldn't they do that? That's what's bothering me. And is it because you, you were working with such a horribly done investigation? Was it because you, you chose to put the absolute worst person for the job on the accident reconstruction? Like you're telling me the Massachusetts State Police had nobody better than Trooper Paul? No one better? That's, that's very hard to believe.

• 1:53:09Derrick Levasseur?

  Oh, it's what, it's what I said. They don't always go with the best. They just go with the person who's in that position.

• 1:53:13Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, but if you wanted to win this, if you were that sure of her guilt, you're gonna make sure this is an airtight case.

• 1:53:19Derrick Levasseur?

  They were planning for Jackson and Yannetti.

• 1:53:22Stephanie Harlowe?

  I mean, at this point.

• 1:53:24Derrick Levasseur?

  They thought it was a slam dunk.

• 1:53:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  At this point, even with the accident, oh, by the way, I found out Alan Jackson has like a, um, an engineering degree or something.

• 1:53:31Derrick Levasseur?

  Hey, listen, man, if I, if I ever find myself in trouble, he's not too far from me. I'll be calling Alan Jackson. I hope he has his license in Rhode Island.

• 1:53:38Stephanie Harlowe?

  Look at Alan Jackson.

• 1:53:40Derrick Levasseur?

  I don't plan on getting in trouble, but just in case.

• 1:53:41Stephanie Harlowe?

  But standing in front of Trooper Paul, even me with no engineering experience and no legal experience as like a lawyer, I would have been like, dude, what the hell are you talking about? Like, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. So it's not that they didn't plan for Yannetti and Jackson. It seems like they legitimately put the absolute worst person who knew the very least on that job. And why? Was it because that's all they had? Or was it because they didn't want him to actually do a proper reconstruction? That would show that John was not hit by Karen? I don't know. But the fact of the matter is. I can't trust anything that accident reconstruction said, and until you can prove, which you should easily be able to do, considering you have all the components,

• 1:54:23Stephanie Harlowe?

  that that vehicle struck John, I'm not, I'm not willing to fall one way or the other. I think it's very possible she hit him 100 million percent. She did not do it intentionally. And they're like, oh, see, she's so mad. She's screaming at him.

• 1:54:39Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, would you call the person that you knew you just killed and start MFing them?

• 1:54:44Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I don't see it.

• 1:54:45Stephanie Harlowe?

  No?

• 1:54:46Derrick Levasseur?

  She, I don't see it. I, I personally, she did, she fooled me.

• 1:54:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Even going as far as to make it seem like she intentionally did it. She's just this angry, violent person. That makes you lose credibility as the prosecution.

• 1:54:59Derrick Levasseur?

  I think it presented a motive for prosecution. They used it in their closing argument there. They played the clips.

• 1:55:04Stephanie Harlowe?

  I know, and it's like, okay, enough, guys.

• 1:55:07Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I don't think she knew.

• 1:55:08Stephanie Harlowe?

  No.

• 1:55:09Derrick Levasseur?

  I don't think she knew. If she did do it, I don't think she knew.

• 1:55:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  So, and it's like, enough, guys. Now it just seems like you have a hard on for her. It seems like you have it out for her because you can't even give her the benefit of the doubt that she was drunk and maybe pulled away in anger and maybe like, yeah, knocked him over. So you can't even give her that because you have no evidence that she did it intentionally. But you keep making it seem like you absolutely believe she did. And that, that leads us, the jury and the members of the public who would make up a jury like that, to feel a little like misled, like you're mischaracterizing the situation and it's already a bad enough situation.

• 1:55:50Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, it's a bad one.

• 1:55:52Stephanie Harlowe?

  You're asking us to believe that Karen Reed's a monster when we know she's not. She's, she may be a people pleaser. She may go out of her way to try to make people like her. She may try to buy people with her money, you know, not buy them in a bad way, but in a way of like, oh, if I do nice things for you, you'll stay around. That makes me sad for her, but you will never make, convince me she's a monster who intentionally killed this man, knowing she was going to leave his niece and nephew with nobody.

• 1:56:19Derrick Levasseur?

  She was still trying to get him home that night by saying the kids are going to be left alone. She was still trying to incentivize him to leave the party.

• 1:56:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 1:56:26Derrick Levasseur?

  She, she, she was under the impression that. He was still walking around doing things that she didn't want him doing. So yeah, I'm in a complete agreeance with you on that. It'll be fascinating to see how this one plays out. I know there's been a lot of motions already. There's some new experts coming in. There's been leaks of information from both sides where there's going to be stuff coming out that's going to change the trajectory of this case. I am now committed to seeing how it all plays out. It's a fascinating case and I'm looking forward to hopefully getting to the bottom of it. We'll keep you guys updated on it. If there's like a drastic change in events, maybe we'll do another episode, but more than likely

• 1:57:02Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, I'm sure we'll do a crime weekly news, like an update on-

• 1:57:04Derrick Levasseur?

  That's kind of what crime weekly news is for. We'll do an update. We may do a couple of them. If there's some, if there's multiple things that are worth covering, or we'll just do one for the verdict. But we appreciate you guys sticking around for the entire series. I felt it was a good series. I felt like we tried to represent both sides and I feel like we covered a lot. And overall, the, the response has been good. Obviously, some people don't agree with everything we said, but that's what happens when you're having healthy discussions. So overall, we appreciate you guys being here. We're going to have a new case coming out. We were actually discussing some new cases before we started recording this one that we're intrigued by and looking forward to get into. Maybe not as public and as popular as this case.

• 1:57:48Stephanie Harlowe?

  And has like muddled. Hopefully not as muddled.

• 1:57:52Derrick Levasseur?

  Nonetheless, needs to be covered and maybe a case that you haven't heard of yet, which a lot of people prefer. So we're going to do that as well. We're going to try to keep mixing it up. We want everyone to stay safe out there and we will see you next week.

• 1:58:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  Bye.

• 1:58:05Derrick Levasseur?

  Bye.