Pod Insights SERIALOUSLY 289: Karen Read: Verdict Watch, Closing Arguments & Powerful Final Week About this episode We’re officially on verdict watch. The Karen Read trial wrapped with explosive closing arguments, emotional moments in the courtroom, and a final week that could change everything. Let’s break down the most powerful moments and what happens next. We're going on tour - AGAIN!! Tickets go on sale TODAY at 9am PST! Grab yours at www.annieelise.com🔎Join Our True Crime Club & Get Exclusive Content & Perks 🔎Join The Club: https://www.patreon.com/annieelise🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to EXTRA deep dive episodes every week on Apple!https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/serialously-with-annie-elise/id1519456164Follow Annie on Socials 📸🩷Instagram: @ _annieelise💜TikTok: @_annieelise🗞️ Substack: @annieelise💙Facebook: @10tolifeShop Annie’s Closet & Must-Haves! 👗Poshmark: https://posh.mk/Tdbki6Ae0RbShopMY: https://shopmy.us/annieeliseAmazon: https://www.amazon.com/shop/10tolife?ref_=cm_sw_r_apin_aipsfshop_BKN1ZMCMEZHACVFQ2R75&language=en_USDisclaimer ‣ Some links may be affiliate links, they do not cost you anything, but I make a small percentage from the sale. Thank you so much for watching and supporting me.🎙️ Follow the podcast for FREE on all podcast platforms! Apple:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/serialously-with-annie-elise/id1519456164Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/6HdheEH8WeMTHoe5da34qUAll Other Platforms: https://audioboom.com/channels/5100770-serialously-with-annie-eliseGet Involved or Recommend the Case 💬About Annie: https://annieelise.com/For Business Inquiries: [email protected] .*Sources used to collect this information include various public news sites, interviews, court documents, FB groups dedicated to the case, and various news channel segments. When quoting statements made by others, they are strictly alleged until confirmed otherwise. Please remember my videos are my independent opinion and to always do your own research.
Transcript Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Annie Elise? Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds. Because switching your home and auto insurance is way better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states.
0:27 Speaker 01 It starts with a handshake. A word becomes an agreement. An agreement becomes a contract. A contract becomes bound by law. Today, Harvey, the AI platform designed specifically for legal work, is powering that next step. More than 200,000 lawyers and 80% of the Am Law 100 are building with Harvey, accelerating review, sharpening negotiations, and more. Harvey. Learn more at harvey.ai. Harvey does not provide legal advice. Users should always independently review and verify any output from Harvey.
0:56 Speaker 02 Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. The message for everyone paying big wire to us way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.
1:17 Annie Elise? Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate for three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com. Okay, can we just talk about holiday gifting for a second? There's nothing like having those pieces in your closet that you absolutely love, that you know you can count on for any occasion. For me, it's like this nice little silk two-piece jumpsuit. It's like a pant and a nice little, like, top blouse, because I'm not really a dress person. And I feel like the best part is, like, maybe give somebody else that feeling, having that staple to go to in their closet that is high-quality, that looks great, that they can wear for any occasion. So this holiday season, I've not only found those pieces for myself in the past at Quince,
2:00 Annie Elise? but I am paying it forward and I am gifting the gift of Quince this season. Everything there is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands, because they work dur- Directly with ethical factories and they cut out the middleman. So you're giving luxury quality, but without that luxury price tag. I've told you before too, if like you wanna maybe not branch out and do clothes because that's a little bit personal of a gift, their cashmere throw blanket, I'm telling you, you will be the favorite daughter-in-law, favorite son-in-law, favorite friend. It is the best gift you could give. Cashmere throw blanket, mark my words. So go ahead, go check it all out at quince.com. Give the gift of quality this holiday season.
2:41 Annie Elise? Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. And when Quince asks you where you heard about them, let them know that it was Serial Sleet that sent you. It is the best way to support the show. Hey guys, I am so excited because we are finally going back out on tour and this is going to be our biggest tour yet. We are hitting a lot of cities, coming to a city near you. And this tour is going to be unlike the last tour and unlike any episode or case that we have ever presented. It's going to be an all new exclusive case, an entirely new approach, interactive with you guys.
3:25 Annie Elise? And it is just going to be so great. I am so excited to connect with all of you guys. I am very eager for you to hear this case and it's just going to be an unforgettable night. So tickets are on sale now, but grab yours now before they're gone. You can get all of the information at annieelise.com. I will also link it in the show notes and I'm really excited to see you there. So head to annieelise.com, grab your tickets and I'll be seeing you soon.
3:50 Speaker 03 Karen Reed accused of the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has consistently asserted her innocence alleging a concerted effort by law enforcement to frame her.
4:04 Speaker 04 Charged with hitting her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV early Saturday morning and leaving him in a snowbank. The closely watched murder trial has ended in a mistrial.
4:15 Speaker 05 The prosecution is indicating that it will retry this case and the question becomes one of how will they do it?
4:25 Annie Elise? Hey true crime besties, welcome back to an all new episode of Serial Sleet.
4:49 Annie Elise? Hello, hello, hello, and welcome back to an all new episode of Seriallessly with me, Annie Elise, and we are in our Karen Reed recap era right now, but actually it's the end of an era because this more than likely is the last recap. The next episode you hear where I'm talking about Karen Reed will be the verdict. And let me just say, this trial, it went on as expected. They had forecasted eight weeks. Well, technically, I guess it may spill into nine, possibly, but it went on the full time, which kind of surprised me because it seemed like when we were at that halfway point that it might end up being under eight weeks. But this week was like a full banger of an ending
5:32 Annie Elise? because the defense continued to bring their witnesses. These witnesses really held their own and in my opinion, illustrated a lot of proof and a very compelling argument that John O'Keefe was never hit by a vehicle. And what was really interesting this week too, I feel like there were so many iconic moments, but Hank Brennan, on his own cross examination, was kind of put into his place by some of these experts where he tried to challenge them or make them look stupid by asking, you know, well, isn't there something called a this, like a medical term? And I'm like, uh, I think you actually mean this. Like, it was just, again, iconic. And there was one part midweek where they ended up calling for, the defense ended up calling for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning if
6:16 Annie Elise? it's with prejudice, they would never be, they wouldn't be able to file charges again. And they did that because during one of the cross examinations with ARCA, Brennan held up John O'Keefe's shirt and said, he asked the guy like, hey, look, see all these holes in the back of his shirt? Um, did you take any of this into consideration when you were doing your analysis? All of this, come to find out, or not even come to find out, everybody who was watching it knew it at the time, except apparently Hank Brennan. But those holes were not caused from the incident or alleged incident.
6:50 Annie Elise? Those holes were cut after the fact. So then the defense goes for a mistrial with prejudice, which then Brennan comes in and had to throw his tail between his legs, make this very uncomfy apology where he basically admits to Bev, the jury was out of the courtroom at this point, like, I made a mistake. This is really what it is. And to everybody's, I don't even want to say everybody's disbelief. I think everybody could see it coming from a mile away. But Bev did not grant the mistrial. But it was a huge epic failure on the Commonwealth. And there's just kind of been a few of those, right? And the guilty poll that we have up, the public one, it went down this week. It went down back to 2%. So it'll be interesting to see what the jury's been thinking about all of this
7:35 Annie Elise? and what verdict they're going to come to. So Thursday, we had the charge conference, which is basically where they go over all the jury instructions. They make any last minute motions or, you know, asks of the court of what to include in those jury instructions, what not to include. And then closing arguments was on Friday. And I gotta say, nobody does a closer like Alan Jackson. It was strong. It hit hard and we're gonna see. They basically talk about many times too, and they've done this throughout the trial, how the Commonwealth's own medical examiner could not rule that John was hit by a vehicle. Some of the experts even saying he was not hit by a vehicle. It couldn't have happened, especially the defense expert saying that,
8:18 Annie Elise? saying his injuries are just not consistent with a collision. And that really needs to be the very first question that is asked in the deliberation room. Before we vote on, you know, is Karen guilty? Not guilty, guilty. Let's vote on this. Was John O'Keefe hit by a car? And if anybody votes no, case closed right there. You can't convict her because that is what the entire case is built upon. That is the foundation. And I don't believe that the Commonwealth proved their argument in this. I don't. I know I've been mentioning how I think it leans way more in the reasonable doubt category. I think also after this week, it was such a compelling week. I still am sitting now, I'm leaning more towards just not guilty, that there's something else here. And we've been talking about that for weeks too, right?
9:03 Annie Elise? That it seems like it would be such a common, easy explanation. She was wasted. She hit John. He flew back, hit his head, was incapacitated, and then died in the snow. But then you layer in all of the other shady shit. The butt dials, the deleted his search histories, the rehoming of the dog, the redoing of the basement, the lying about being in the Sally Port, the this, the that. And it's like, you know, how do you explain all of that? Unless you are the worst investigators on the face of the planet, which spoiler alert, you probably are, but it's like, how do you explain all of that away? I will be shocked if Karen Reed is found guilty. I think they do have a lot of grounds for appeal and I'm sure they will file appeals if she is,
9:47 Annie Elise? but I would be shocked if she's found guilty. So we're going to be on verdict watch. I will let you know as soon as we have a verdict and interested to know what you think. But anyway, as I said, this was probably one of the most iconic weeks in the trial so far. So I'm going to have Elena jump in. She's going to break down everything that went down this week for you, all the way through closings. And then we will be on verdict watch together. And just as an FYI guys, I know Elena is very, very smart and you can hear that in her voice, but she's a scientist. She went to MIT, so she is like incredibly thorough and smart. So anyways, I just love when she breaks it all down, but I'll shut up now. Elena, take it away.
10:26 Speaker 06 Hey, Annie. Well, both sides have rested and it's all up to the jury now. Let's break down the testimony that they heard this week, since this will be the freshest in their mind as they go to deliberate. We kicked off the week on Monday, the 9th. Now, this was a full day, but I gotta say, it was a lot of sidebars, a lot of wadiers, a lot of breaks and not a lot of new testimony. First thing, we finish up Dr. Daniel Wolfe's testimony. On redirect and then re-cross and re-redirect and then re-re-cross. They covered a lot of the same things that we already talked about last week, specifically about the different weights that were used in different tests. No, ultimately neither the prosecution expert welcher, nor the defense expert Wolfe, nor the actual weight of John's arm.
11:10 Speaker 06 And they both used a medium weight crash dummy. So it's kind of a wash in the end. But hey, at least Wolf actually tested different speeds and different arm positions and different collision types. That reason alone is enough for me to give my vote to Wolf over Welch. Then, get this. We heard another motion for the defense for mistrial with prejudice. This is their third time asking for a mistrial in as many weeks. Do any of you guys have like a weekly chores list like me? Mine's like scrub the bathroom, take out the trash. Hear the defense motion for a mistrial with prejudice, listen to Kanoni deny it, and that's exactly what happened. And all jokes aside, this one was actually a bit different and a bit more dramatic.
11:53 Speaker 06 And it had to do with Brennan holding up John's hoodie to the jury, and then asking Dr. Wolf if the holes on the back of it could have been caused by him falling backward and hitting the road. Now, the issue here is that those holes were actually cut by the prosecution's own forensic scientist, Maureen Hartnett. They clearly had nothing to do with how John died, so it was really out of line for Brennan to bring it up and act like they could be. And shockingly, Brennan actually admitted to this mistake. He got up to the podium and characterized it as an honest mistake, and said he simply didn't realize that Hartnett cut the hoodie. But the defense, they saw it very differently. Alessi for the defense said, quote, "What could be more egregious? What could be more misleading?
12:38 Speaker 06 The prosecution picked the most opportune, sensitive time to pull this stunt. This is intentional, this is irremediable, and this is on the key issue of this case, whether there was any collision at all." Now even after that, unsurprisingly, Judge Kanoni denied the mistrial and instead gave the jury instructions that the cuts were made by Hartnett. What was really bad though is that she totally snapped at the defense while they were trying to figure out what to say to the jury. Jackson and Alessi were talking amongst themselves about this jury instruction, and it must have been at the same time that Kanoni was trying to speak, because she did that thing that you might hear from your middle school teacher. You know, where the teacher is like, "Well, if you're not gonna listen, I guess I just won't talk."
13:24 Speaker 06 That kind of thing. She totally did that. And honestly, I found it pretty rude, especially during this really important moment for the defense. After that whole thing, we did hear briefly from private investigator John Tiedemann. He made measurements at 34 Fairview and he testified that the distance from the mailbox to the main door is 66 feet. The distance from the mailbox to the side door is 70 feet. And the distance from the mailbox to the garage door is 78 feet. And those are all less than the 84 feet that we know John took leading up to his phone locking for the last time. But he did admit that the distance from the flagpole through the street and then back up the driveway would be more than 84 feet.
14:08 Speaker 06 He also testified that the garage at 34 Fairview had concrete flooring and steps with a ridge. And the defense is implying that that's where John could have hit his head. But the judge told the jury to strike that part of the testimony, which basically means that they can't consider it. And then on Monday and into Tuesday, we heard testimony from Dr. Elizabeth La Pasada, who's a forensic pathologist and a medical examiner. Before that though, Judge Canoni ruled that a bunch of her testimony had to be excluded, especially the parts about dog bites and car crashes. And I thought this was disappointing because Dr. La Pasada seemed very qualified to me. She's a professor of pathology at Brown University and she was previously the chief medical examiner for the entire state of Rhode Island.
14:54 Speaker 06 She's done over 3,000 autopsies and of those she said hundreds were on car crash victims and at least 50 were on dog bite victims. But Canoni still didn't find her to be qualified. Now, after some back and forth with the lawyers, Canoni did agree to at least let Dr. La Pasada testify about animal bites, but not about dog bites specifically. And after all that mess with the lawyers, Dr. La Pasada was still able to give some really powerful testimony for the defense. She said, quote, "Mr. O'Keefe went backwards onto something that had a little ridge. It had some sort of irregularity to cause the different scrapes." And when she was asked if the injuries were consistent with John hitting flat ground,
15:36 Speaker 06 she said, quote, "It has to be a surface that has some ridges in it to make those little vertical patterns," end quote, which directly disagrees with what we heard from the prosecution expert, Dr. Isaac Wolf. La Pasada also said that she looked at pictures of the lawn at 34 Fairview, and she didn't see anything that would cause the type of skull injury that John had. And also, that cut to John's right eye? She said it was consistent with being punched with a closed fist. She added that all of the injuries to his torso area, like those rib fractures and the bleeding to his stomach lining, were caused by medical chest compression, not by being hit by a vehicle. Now, Cross definitely got a little interesting. Dr. La Pasada was the first defense witness to really go toe-to-toe with Brennan, to
16:21 Speaker 06 give him a little bit of sass. And it started right off the bat when Brennan got to the podium a couple of minutes before noon and said, "Good afternoon, doctor." And she replied, "Uh, it's not afternoon for six more minutes." That really set the tone for the Cross. And I didn't realize this before, but apparently Brennan and La Pasada have some sort of history. Not romantic history, obviously, but legal history. When Brennan was a defense lawyer, he himself hired Dr. La Pasada at least a couple of different times. But this week, he said, quote, "I don't use her anymore. I'm not gonna disclose why I don't use her anymore, but I don't use her anymore." Weird verbiage, by the way, Brennan, but the point is, these two have some bad blood, and it definitely showed.
17:05 Speaker 06 Now, as for the substance of Cross, there wasn't all that much, because these two could not agree on anything. They argued about how quickly John's brain would have started swelling after the impact. They argued about when blood would have pooled under his eyes. They argued about the specifics of hypothermia. They argued about whether or not this counts as a classic wound. They even argued about how similar the brain is to tofu. Brennan also tried to call her credentials into question by bringing up her work at the Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island. She admitted that she received, quote, "A flurry of negative press for showing up late to the scene," but she said it was without basis, and she came as soon as she was called. Now, in another line of questioning, Dr. La Pasada did admit that a wound on a dead
17:50 Speaker 06 person wouldn't spurt blood. Which calls into question if John was actually passed away when Karen found him. Because remember, she said she pulled out a piece of glass from his nose and blood gushed out. And finally, after the prosecution went through all of that effort to get Dr. Lapisada's testimony regarding car crashes thrown out, Brendan asked her about it anyway. He specifically asked if she knew how fast Karen's car was going at the time of the incident. And she replied, quote, "Well, it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter. It was not relevant to my opinion. By looking at the body, I could tell there was no evidence of impact with a vehicle. So whether a vehicle was going slow or fast was not relevant," end quote. And that was about it for Cross.
18:33 Speaker 06 I was surprised that Brendan didn't really press her on her most damning opinion, which were that John's injuries could not have been caused by falling backwards onto a flat surface, and that hypothermia did not contribute to his death.
18:47 Speaker 06 Now, I'm really interested how the jury will weigh the testimony from Dr. Lapisada and Dr. Russell against that from Dr. Isaac Wolf and Dr. Scorti Bello. Because in my opinion, all four of them were extremely reliable medical experts with some solid reasoning to back up their opinion. Then on Tuesday afternoon and into Wednesday, the defense called their last witness, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanist who's also from the reconstruction firm Arca. Now, Dr. Rentschler, he was a good witness for the defense, don't get me wrong. The actual content of what he testified to was really important. But I don't find him quite as, you know, calm, cool, and collected as the other defense witnesses.
19:28 Speaker 02 Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.
19:49 Speaker 04 Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate for three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.
19:58 Speaker 06 He said some odd things, like he gave a shout-out to his kid for his birthday, which I don't think is appropriate at all for a murder trial. But anyway, I digress. And getting to his actual testimony, Rentschler's main conclusion was that John's injuries were not consistent with being hit by Karen's car. He did searches in the literature, he looked at Apertre's report, and he did his own field testing to come to his conclusion. And he also considered if either a head-on collision or a side-swept collision could explain John's injuries. He testified that a head-on collision would have caused much more damage to Karen's car than was actually found, while a side-swept collision would have pushed John's body into a completely different position than it was actually found in.
20:43 Speaker 06 He said, quote, "I see no evidence anywhere in this case that would suggest that if you get a glancing blow, that somehow would produce enough force to push you eight to 10 feet into a yard." He also pointed out that there are 36 injuries on the outside of John's arm, but only nine holes in the sleeve of his hoodie, which doesn't make sense if he was injured while wearing the hoodie.
21:07 Speaker 06 He said that the lack of internal injuries to John's arms and legs is also significant. He said, quote, "At these speeds, you would likely expect fractures, certainly to the hand and likely to the ulna and radius in the forearm if the hand was struck by the rear of the SUV."
21:24 Speaker 06 And likewise, all of Rentschler's testing showed serious damage to the dummy's leg, which John didn't have at all. Then he explained why the cut on John's nose is also inconsistent with the collision. He said, quote, "The shard can't come out, make a hard right-hand turn, and then somehow embed itself on the left side of the nose," end quote. Then Dr. Rentschler also directly called Dr. Welcher's studies out. He testified that during the blue paint experiments, Welcher physically pushed himself into the taillight area and leaned into the impact, which is not at all how an actual pedestrian would act. He added that the paint test didn't involve any force calculations, it didn't show how John's arm would have moved after this alleged collision, and it didn't show how the taillight would actually break.
22:10 Speaker 06 Rentschler said, quote, "You have to explain how these things happened. If you don't have details, if you haven't performed a proper analysis, then you can't come to a conclusion that something happened. You can't depend on just your experience," end quote. Now, after that, we moved on to cross, which was tiring, I guess is the best word I can think of. Maybe I just have trial fatigue at this point. Probably everyone does. I'm sure the jury does. And don't get me wrong, again, Dr. Rentschler, he did do a good job. There was just a lot of sidebars, a lot of objections, a lot of questions that weren't very relevant, in my opinion. And all of that made it feel pretty tense and tiring.
22:51 Speaker 06 Now, we kicked things off with the whole debate over a sandwich. Seriously. Basically Brennan asked Dr. Rentschler if he communicated with the defense after the first trial, and he said that he had a ham sandwich with them. Now, I guess this was to show that Arca isn't impartial at this point. You know, they're buddy-buddy with the defense. But hey, Aperture isn't impartial either. Now, after Sandwich Gate, Dr. Rentschler said he was aware of studies that say crash dummies shouldn't be used to study soft tissue injuries. But he argued that he didn't actually do that in his analysis. He also admitted that he determined that John didn't have any internal arm injuries just by looking at x-rays, which can only show fractures and breaks. They don't show things like muscle tears or nerve injuries.
23:36 Speaker 06 Although I will say if those injuries had been present in John's arm, I do think the medical examiner, Dr. Scorti Bello, would have documented them. So I think it's fair to say that John didn't have any internal injuries to the arm. Then Brennan spent a lot of time pressing Rentschler about his opinions on Dr. Welcher in kind of a bizarre way. He basically kept saying, "Well, how can you say that Dr. Welcher didn't do a good job if he wasn't even trying to reenact the collision?" Brennan asked this in like six different ways. And each time, Rentschler was like, "Uh, well, if your expert wasn't trying to replicate the collision, then what the heck was he doing? What's the purpose of his studies?" And I agree with Rentschler here.
24:16 Speaker 06 It's so odd to me that Brennan would try to discredit Rentschler by making his own witness look bad. Brennan also repeatedly asked if Rentschler knew specific details about the collision, like the angle and the position of John's body, things like that. And each time, Rentschler was like, "No, I don't know," because there was no collision. He really got to drive that point home, even across examination, that he believes there was no collision at all. And given that, I'm not surprised that the defense used Rentschler as their last witness. We know that no collision is the cornerstone of their case. And I think Rentschler made that point well for them. And with that, the defense rested their case.
24:57 Speaker 06 And then, get this, after spending all of that time filing so many motions to get their rebuttal witnesses in, the prosecution decided not to call any of them, not their dog bite experts, and not even Dr. Welcher. This really surprised me. I thought for sure Brennan would be chopping out the bit to get Welcher back up on that stand. He must have either been so confident in Welcher's original testimony that he doesn't feel like he needs him again, or on the other end of things, he felt like Welcher already got torn apart by Rentschler, so he didn't want to bring him back and leave a sour taste in the jury's mouth. I don't know which one it is, and I'm not even gonna try to get into Brennan's head and guess. But either way, both sides are done with testimony.
25:41 Speaker 06 And the last thing that the jury heard a witness say was that there was no collision, and I think that might really stick with them.
25:49 Speaker 06 Now, comparing all of this witness testimony from this trial to the first trial, a couple of things stick out to me. Both trials were similar in length, but I felt that both sides put on a stronger case this time. And I think the biggest reason for that is that they both focused on experts instead of eyewitnesses. There's a whole host of characters who testified last time that we didn't hear from at all this time. Obviously, the ones that stick out are Michael Proctor, Brian Albert, and Brian Higgins. But we also didn't hear from Colin Albert, Matt McCabe, Ally McCabe, Nicole Albert, Caitlin Albert. Most of the gang was missing, and I think that was strategic on both sides.
26:30 Speaker 06 Think about it, if you're the defense, you probably don't want to call a bunch of eyewitnesses who are going to say your client did it. And if you're the prosecution, you probably don't want to call a bunch of witnesses who are sketchy as hell. It's gonna make you look untrustworthy. Instead, both sides honed in on a couple of key eyewitnesses. Carrie Roberts and Jen McCabe for the prosecution, and Lucky Loughran and Karina Calakithas for the defense. And then they made up the bulk of their cases with expert witnesses and members of law enforcement, which I do think were smart on both sides. And then on Friday morning, we heard closing arguments for both sides. Alan Jackson gave what I thought was a really great closing statement for the defense. And he focused on the same two main prongs that he started with in opening statements.
27:16 Speaker 06 First, that there was no collision. If there was a motto for the defense, that would be it. There was no collision, there was no collision, there was no collision. He said it three times, just like that. And he added, "They cannot and they will never be able to prove that John was struck by a vehicle." Jackson pointed out that not a single medical expert on either side of the case has ever testified that John was hit by a car. The prosecution's own medical examiner said she didn't see any evidence of an impact site, and she refused to conclude that the death was a homicide. And John's arm, that one that was supposedly hit by a 6,000-pound car? No breaks, no fractures, not even a bruise.
28:02 Speaker 06 How about those tests from aperture? Jackson says all they prove is that John was tall enough for his elbow to hit the taillight. He added that every single test done at every single speed shows damage that's inconsistent with what was found on Karen's car. The internal diffuser in her taillight was very badly damaged, and no expert on either side could produce a test that showed that level of damage. But John's DNA was on the taillight, what about that? Well, Jackson said, remember, it was only on the outer, smooth part of the taillight housing, where John could have brushed against it doing anything. It was not on the taillight shards. In fact, those shards didn't have DNA or blood or human tissue at all. And speaking of the taillight shards,
28:47 Speaker 06 how did they make 36 cuts in John's arm, but only nine cuts in the sweatshirt? Now, Jackson's second main point was that former trooper Michael Proctor ruined the investigation from the start. Remember eight weeks ago when I said that in his opening statement, Jackson was giving the jurors glasses to view the case with? Those are the Proctor is biased glasses. And now Jackson is asking the jurors to put those glasses back on and view all the evidence during deliberations through that lens, through the lens of whatever the prosecution might have, it can't be trusted because it was because it was collected by a biased source, a source that's now fired for his conduct in this case.
29:27 Speaker 06 Jackson said, quote, "Their investigation was flawed from the start because their investigator was corrupted from the start." He reminded us about some of those nasty texts that Proctor sent his friends and even his boss. She's a whack-job C-word. There will be some serious charges brought on the girl. Zero chance she skates. No nudes yet. How about the homeowner? Is he gonna get in trouble for all this? Proctor says, "Nope. Homeowner's a Boston cop, too." Jackson added, quote, "He was fired for this blatant bias. If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can you trust him with the investigation, with your verdict and with Karen Reed's life?"
30:11 Speaker 06 And about that taillight evidence, Jackson reminded us that not a single piece of taillight evidence was found at the scene until after Proctor had access to Karen's car. He said, quote, "This is the man who touched every single piece of important evidence in this case. All the evidence that was brought before you in this trial went through his hands one way or another. Remember that. The shirts, the shards, all in Michael Proctor's possession."
30:39 Speaker 06 Jackson also emphasized the sketchy behavior of Brian Higgins, and he pretty clearly pointed the finger at him for John's death, and laid out exactly how he thinks it happened. He reminded us about Higgins' text with Karen, his motioning to John in the bar, and him coaxing John to 34 Fairview. Then, once he got to 34 Fairview, remember John took 84 steps in a westerly direction toward the house? That's from Ian Whiffen, the prosecution's own witness. Then at that point, Jackson says, "Remember that John's phone battery? It dropped 20 degrees in temperature over an hour. I meditated constant at 50 degrees for four hours." Jackson says that's because John was not outside at all.
31:21 Speaker 06 Quote, "He was someplace warmer, like a basement or a garage." And Dr. Lapisada confirmed that. She said, quote, "He did not die of hypothermia because he was not outside."
31:34 Speaker 06 So if not hypothermia, how did John die? Well, according to Jackson, the injury to the back of John's head and his eyelid show that he was punched and fell backward. And then at some point, Chloe, the Albert's German Shepherd, she must have gotten involved. Jackson pointed out that "no medical expert from the prosecution disputes that John's arm injuries are from a dog."
31:57 Speaker 06 Alright, well now John is dead. What does Higgins do? Well, according to Jackson, he takes that late-night trip to Canton PD to mess around with some evidence. And then later, Higgins and Police Chief Ken Berkowitz, they're in the garage with Karen's car for, quote, "a wildly long amount of time." At least that's what Officer Kelly Dever said before the police chief told her to "do the right thing." Then Jackson outlined why some of the other main players for the prosecution can't be trusted. We've got Matt McCabe texting, "Tell them to say the guy never came into the house." And Brian Albert agreeing, "Exactly." We've got Jen McCabe googling "house long to die in the cold" and then deleting it. We have Carrie Roberts admitting to incorrectly testifying
32:41 Speaker 06 that Karen told Jen to Google that. We've got Jen not going inside to the Albert's house, to her sister's house, to see if they were okay. Jackson says, quote, "The only way that makes sense is if she knew what happened already."
32:56 Speaker 06 We also have the Sally Court video, shown completely inverted, so it looks like Proctor didn't go near the right taillight, but he did. We have Dr. Welcher leaning in to the impact during his blue paint tests. We've got Brennan holding up John's hoodie to the jury, saying this happened on January 29th, but we know it didn't. Jackson says all of those examples and more show why you can't trust the prosecution. And Jackson also reminded the jurors about the meaning of reasonable doubt, that they must be absolutely certain beyond all reasonable doubt of all of the facts in this case to convict Karen. He reminded them that if they think it's likely, even very likely, that the prosecution is right, that's not enough. They have to be certain.
33:41 Speaker 06 And he said in this case, it's impossible to be certain. There are, quote, "dozens and dozens of holes of reasonable doubt." Then Brennan gave his closing statement for the prosecution. And if the prosecution had a motto, it would be, quote, "She was drunk, she hit him, she left him to die." Brennan started by reminding us of the person that John was. He was only 46 years old when he died. He was described as someone who was kind, hardworking, and quick to help. He took in his niece and nephew, and they had no one else, and they had lost both of their parents. And he said that when John, John, who was someone who was always quick to help others, when he himself was laying in the snow dying and needed help himself, Brennan says Karen didn't help him.
34:28 Speaker 06 Brennan painted a pretty bleak picture of Karen and John's relationship. He played those voicemails of Karen saying, "John, I effing hate you." He recalled the testimony from John's niece, who said that their trip to Aruba was ruined by Karen's jealousy. And Brennan said that it's that jealousy that was the motive for the murder.
34:47 Speaker 06 And after that, Brennan spent a lot of time laying out the prosecution's timeline of the case, calling it impenetrable, and based on data that can't be disputed. Brennan also relied a lot on clips from Karen's interviews to support his arguments, to try to show that even Karen herself knew she was too impaired to drive. Brennan played a clip where she said, quote, "Well, I've had a few drinks and I drive. I always drive extra slow, so I know my alerts aren't as sharp as they should be, and I shouldn't have been driving." To try to show the prosecution's theory that Karen knew she made contact with John, Brennan played a clip where she said, quote, "But could I have clipped him? Could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him? He didn't look mortally wounded, as far as I could see."
35:32 Speaker 06 Then along a similar vein in the next clip, Karen said, quote, "And I was looking to find him on the side of the road. I was expecting I'd find him." And finally, to try to discredit the defense's theory that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about what Karen said at the scene, Brennan played a final clip where Karen says, quote, "I know I said I hit him, but did I really say it as many times as law enforcement's claiming I said it?" Now, when it comes to the inconsistencies in John's injuries, like the lack of an impact site, Brennan argued that car accidents affect every person differently. And the lack of lower body injuries doesn't necessarily mean that no impact occurred. Brennan also admitted that Proctor's conduct, it was deplorable, but he argued that the
36:15 Speaker 06 Commonwealth doesn't even need Proctor to prove their case. He said, quote, "It's distasteful and dishonorable, but it doesn't give a read a free pass. When you read those text messages, they're hard to look at. It's unfair, but it has nothing to do with justice in this case. It just doesn't. There was not one piece of evidence that was tampered with, planted, or distorted." Then Brennan looked to call the credibility of the defense witnesses into question. He pointed out that one of the defense's star witnesses, Dr. Wolfe, used Signal and deleted his text messages with the defense. Brennan also implied that Sergeant Nicholas Barrows changed her story for attention, to ride on the fame of this case. Similarly, he said that Dr.
36:58 Speaker 06 Marie Russell inserted herself into the case and didn't use reliable methods when assessing the dog bites. And Brendan pointed out that Dr. Russell and Dr. La Pasada, they don't even entirely agree about the dog bites. Dr. Russell said that John's arm didn't have any puncture marks, while Dr. La Pasada said it had many. Then Brendan described what it takes to get a second degree murder conviction, and clarified exactly what the Commonwealth is accusing her of. Brendan said that Karen intended to put her car on reverse and impact John.
37:31 Speaker 06 He says if the jurors believe that she intended to hit her car's accelerator, then that's second degree murder. He added, quote, "It's not a matter of intending to kill. It's not a matter of intending to hit. It's the conduct of the operation. Did her conduct create a clear, plain, strong likelihood of death?" And he ended by reminding us of the prosecution's theory of the case. She was drunk, she hit him, she left him to die. And now it's all in the hands of the jury. My guess is that it could take a couple of days to hear the verdict, even into late next week. Because I think the jury has a lot to consider. How are they gonna weigh the different medical examiners? How are they gonna weigh the different reconstructionists?
38:14 Speaker 06 Are they gonna take these interview clips from Karen as admissions? Are they gonna see the entire investigation as botched? Or just Proctor as one bad character? There's really a lot for them to comb through.
38:28 Speaker 06 It's gonna be really interesting to see what happens with the verdict. Now, my personal opinion, I do think the prosecution has some decent circumstantial evidence against Karen. I think the taillight evidence, plus the three witnesses who say that Karen said I hit him, plus her interview, plus that text room data that shows that John's phone locked for the last time, sometime around when Karen backed up. All those things together, on the surface, I think they make an okay case. But when you look deeper at the damage to the taillight and the injuries to John, I think there is reasonable doubt as to if they collided. And I also think that the investigation was so botched from the beginning that it's hard to trust really any of the evidence from the prosecution.
39:12 Speaker 06 And for those reasons, I personally think that Karen should be found not guilty on all three charges. But I don't really think any verdict here would be true justice for John. And I really hope that through all of this, we don't lose sight of John and the person he was and what he meant to his family. And with that, it's been a long eight weeks for everybody. But I'm so grateful to Annie for having me on for these recaps. And I'm thankful for all of you who've been so welcoming. Thank you, guys, and stay safe.
39:41 Annie Elise? Well, there you have it. So we are officially on verdict watch. We will see what the jury comes back with. I am curious to know how you would vote. And we'll see what happens. We'll see where we go from here. And we need to figure out what the next trial is we're covering. I know we're covering Idaho, but I feel like, you know, I'm not ready to say goodbye to Elena. I love having her on here every week. All right, thank you, guys, so much for tuning in to today's Karen Reed recap. All right, guys, thank you so much for tuning into another episode of Serial Lously. Please don't forget, take five seconds out of your day. If you would be so kind to leave a rating and review of this podcast in the review. If you would just let me know what content you want to hear more about. If you want me to do more deep dives on Colts, on family vlogging, on anything, let me know
40:23 Annie Elise? in that review section, because I really do want to cater the content to what you guys want to hear about. So please, that is a perfect place to let me know. And I really appreciate you guys tuning in to today's episode. Thank you so much. I will be seeing you back bright and early on Thursday for headline highlights. And then, of course, every Monday morning with a deep dive on a brand new case. All right, guys, thank you so much for tuning in, and I will talk with you very soon. Signing off, bye.
40:48 Speaker 01 It starts with a handshake. A word becomes an agreement. An agreement becomes a contract. A contract becomes bound by law. Today, Harvey, the AI platform designed specifically for legal work, is powering that next step. More than 200,000 lawyers and 80% of the Am Law 100 are building with Harvey, accelerating review, sharpening negotiations, and more. Harvey. Learn more at harvey.ai. Harvey does not provide legal advice. Users should always independently review and verify any output from Harvey.
41:17 Speaker 07 Time for a quick break to talk about McDonald's. It's the tangiest time of the year. For a limited time, head to McDonald's and get a McRib sandwich. Make it a meal by adding a medium fries and a soft drink like an ice cold Diet Dr. Pepper. So grab a McRib sandwich and embrace the tang. Save time by ordering ahead on the app at participating McDonald's for a limited time. Dr. Pepper is a registered trademark of Dr. Pepper, 7-Up Inc.
Previous 287: Travis Decker Kills His 3 Daughters, Teen Murdered by Roommates, and Toddler Sees Mom’s Murder Next 288: Online Dating Scam Ends With Two Bodies Floating in the River | The Case of Laura Kowal Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated