263: Karen Read Retrial: Everything You Need to Know | Facts, Shady Secrets, & Cover Ups

This week on Serialously with Annie Elise, tune into the notorious case of Boston police officer John O’Keefe, who was found lifeless in the snow outside a quiet suburban home. His girlfriend, Karen Read, became the immediate suspect—accused of running him over with her SUV and leaving him to die in a blizzard. As the case unfolded, whispers of a cover-up, corrupt investigators, and missing evidence began to surface. Karen claimed she was being framed, while others insisted she was hiding the truth. A lead investigator was later fired, texts were uncovered, and the cracks in the prosecution’s case grew deeper. Now, as her highly anticipated retrial begins in 2025, the stakes are even higher and the mystery more twisted. Was Karen a killer in plain sight—or the fall girl for something she didn’t do?🔎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, https://www.instagram.com/_annieelise/?hl=en💜TikTok: @_annieelise, https://www.tiktok.com/@_annieelise?lang=en🗞️ Substack: @annieelise, https://substack.com/@annieelise💙Facebook: @10tolife, https://www.facebook.com/10toLIFE⭐️Sponsors ⭐️O Positiv- Take proactive care of your health and head to http://OPositiv.com/AE or enter AE at checkout for 25% off your first purchase. CBDistillery- Visit http://CBDistillery.com and use code AE for 25% off. Audible- Visit http://Audible.com/SERIALOUSLY or text SERIALOUSLY to 500-500. SKIMS- Check out the Fits Everybody Collection at http://skims.com/annie. Shop 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 🔗Boston 25 NewsBoston.comCBS NewsCOURT TVMassLiveNBC10 BostonThe Boston GlobeThe Patriot LedgerToday.comWCVB Channel 5 BostonWHDHWikipediaWJAR*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. ••••••••••••••••••Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this video are personal and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organization, employer, or company. Assumptions made in the analysis are not reflective of the position of any entity other than the creator(s). These views are subject to change, revision, and rethinking at any time and are not to be held in perpetuity. We make no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, correctness, suitability, or validity of any information on this video and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. It is the reader’s responsibility to verify their own facts.

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

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Time for a quick break to talk about McDonald's. Start your morning with the $6 McGriddles Extra Value Meal. Featuring your choice of a sausage, egg and cheese McGriddles, or bacon, egg and cheese McGriddles, plus crispy hash browns and a small premium roast coffee. Sweet, savory, crispy, and caffeinated. It's everything your morning ordered, all for just $6. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing at participating McDonald's.

• 0:23Speaker 01

  Hi, it's me, your gutters. Everything is totally fine. There's just a lot of debris up here and I've been managing it mostly on my own. I just thought you could find someone on Angie to clean me up. I could really use it.

• 0:35Speaker 02

  Your gutters have waited long enough. Find a pro at Angie.com.

• 0:38Speaker 03

  Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in, and that's too late. SimpliSafe is changing that. Stop, this is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way. We don't just alert, we help stop crime before it starts. Plans starting around $1 a day. Right now, get 70% off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com/sxm. SimpliSafe, ahead of crime, in real time.

• 1:03Speaker 04

  Outdoor deterrence plans start at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com/licenses for alarm license information.

• 1:10Annie Elise?

  Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all-new episode of Serially.

• 1:34Annie Elise?

  Hey, everybody. Welcome back to an all-new episode of Serially. I'm your host, Annie E. Lys, and we have got a lot to talk about today. Now, you may be familiar with the name Karen Reed. Whether you have followed the case, heard about the case, watched the docu-series Body in the Snow, or just saw all of these clips going viral on your TikTok, you might be familiar with the name. We first covered Karen's story about two years ago, I believe it was now at this point, and we've given some updates since then. But her second trial is now well underway. And what's really interesting- Okay, this case first and foremost has been just absolutely polarizing. It has divided the whole country on whether they believe that Karen is guilty

• 2:19Annie Elise?

  or whether they believe that she is innocent and being framed. There are also so many allegations of conspiracy, cover up, corruption, and so many players involved too, that it's really difficult to make heads or tails of things and to keep it all organized and keep it straight. So today, we are going to discuss everything you need to know about Karen Reed as we are now in this second trial. Not only the case itself and everything that went down with the case, the red flags, the shadiness, the inconsistencies, but also what happened in the first trial because there were a lot of bombshells. We also are going to talk about everything that has happened since then up until this new trial beginning because there is a lot to go over.

• 3:02Annie Elise?

  So now that we are well into the second trial, I wanted to jump on here and just break it down for you and tell you everything you need to know about Karen Reed, about the case, about the first trial, about all of the shady crap that has been going on behind the scenes and what doesn't make sense. And then, once you have that information, whether you're following the new trial or not, you can decide for yourselves, did Karen Reed kill John O'Keefe? Or is she being framed? And I'll be honest, if you think you know this case like the back of your hand and that you couldn't possibly learn any more information, I promise you there's more. That is how complex this case is. I also personally have been talking with one of Karen Reed's family members and we have sent a correspondent who is there, boots on the ground in Boston, covering this trial.

• 3:48Annie Elise?

  So we are live streaming the trial every single day over on my YouTube channel, 10 to Life. We are commenting on it, we are sharing our theories, our information. We have our correspondent there, as I mentioned as well, and she is going to be providing us recaps throughout the trial as it's expected to go on, I believe, six weeks maybe. And there is just a lot of information. So we are like fully in the throes of all things Karen Reed right now. And honestly, I just felt like it would be helpful because I know that things are going viral online, people are curious about the case. There's like this new intro- As well, since the virality of it on social media. So I wanted to just break down here as we're well into that trial now, like everything you actually need to know. And we're going to

• 4:30Annie Elise?

  touch on all the shady crap too, because trust me, there is no shortage of it. And really quick, before I get into all of the details about this case, I do want to just say it was a shoddy investigation from the start. And I think regardless what side of this case you sit on, I think everybody can agree with that. And the reason I say that is because, for example, they collected evidence with red solo cups. They put evidence not in sealed evidence bags, but in stop and shop bags, which are like little travel bags that you would bring from like a convenience store or a grocery store. They also didn't secure the crime scene. They didn't go inside the house immediately to look around and see if there was evidence of a struggle

• 5:09Annie Elise?

  or anything amiss. They didn't talk to anybody inside. Just very poor and sloppy police work, in my opinion. So with that, I'm just going to say always do your own research. This case is extremely complicated and complex. So do your own research, form your own opinions, and let me just jump into it. So Karen Reed is a 44 year old woman from Mansfield, Massachusetts. And let me just say, prior to all of this, she had an incredible career. She was an equity analyst at Fidelity Investments. She was also a professor of finance at Bentley University, and she just had a rock solid life. She started dating 46 year old Boston police officer, John O'Keefe, back in 2020. However, the two of them actually had a history,

• 5:54Annie Elise?

  because they first started dating back in their early twenties, which I think was around 2004, but then it was kind of like short-lived. It wasn't really even a relationship. It was something casual to my recollection. And they ended up reconnecting years later during the pandemic. Now let's talk about John for a second. John was a 16 year veteran of the Boston Police Department. And by all accounts, he was just incredibly devoted, not only to his job, but to his family. In fact, he was even raising his niece and nephew as their guardian after his sister, who he was incredibly close with, passed away. Just a very good, very upstanding person. So once the two of them reconnected and started dating in 2020, although Karen had her own home, once things started getting serious with John, she was mostly staying at his

• 6:38Annie Elise?

  house. So it was essentially almost like they lived together. So they were together for about two years. They had some ups and downs like every relationship does, but they were working through it. She got very close with his children, which were, again, his niece and nephew, not his biological children, and they seemed to be really in love. But two years into this relationship, things just turned completely upside down. It was Friday, January 28, 2022, just a typical night out. Karen and John had plans to grab some drinks and go meet up with some friends. Most of them were also fellow Boston police officers, just like John, and it really wasn't anything out of the ordinary. They had argued a little bit that morning and were kind of blowing off some steam separate from each

• 7:20Annie Elise?

  other, but then they reconnected that night at the bar and they were just gonna have a fun night out. So they started at one bar just grabbing drinks with their friends, and then they moved over to the Waterfall Bar and Grill. There, they were hanging out with a familiar group that they often saw. It included Jen McCabe and her husband, as well as other officers and their spouses, and everybody just seemed to be in good spirits. No drama, no tension. In fact, multiple witnesses would later say that the vibe was just overall light. Karen and John appeared very happy. So as the night started winding down, around midnight, after they had had quite a few drinks with one another at all the different bars, Jen McCabe invited the group back to her sister's house. The house

• 8:01Annie Elise?

  was located at 34 Fairview Road, and the home was nearby, about two and a half miles away, so not very far, and people just figured that they would keep the night going a little bit longer. So as they're on their way over there, at 12:14 a.m., John texted Jen saying, "Where to?" to which she replied with the address. A few minutes later, John then called her, trying to figure out exactly where the house was. Jen looked out the window and saw a black SUV, Karen's Lexus, pull up near the house. Then, at 12:31, and again at 12:40 a.m., Jen was texting John, encouraging him, like, "Hey, park behind my car in the driveway." Like, "Where are you? Hello?" What's going on?

• 8:41Annie Elise?

  She later then told investigators that she saw Karen's SUV move from where it was originally parked, that she moved to the other side of the property. And this detail would become way more important later because where she's saying her car moved to is the same general area where John's body was eventually found. So Jen texted John again at 12:45 a.m. with just a simple hello, but there was no response. Then apparently not long after the SUV pulled away. But then, over the course of the next few hours, is when everything shifted. Because in the early morning hours, at 4:53 a.m., Karen woke up and she called Jen just fully frantic, in a full-blown panic. She told Jen she could not find John.

• 9:25Annie Elise?

  He wasn't answering his phone. He wasn't responding to her text messages. She couldn't find him anywhere, and she was freaked out. And I think when we went back and looked through all of the digital data, it was something like, once Karen had returned home shortly after 1 a.m., she had called John and texted him some odd, like, 50 times or something like that. Which, remember, they had all been drinking. And, look, it's easy to cast judgment, but I'll just admit, for myself, I'll be, I'll kind of throw myself on the sword here. I've definitely done that. In my, when I was younger, or when I was even older and in a toxic relationship, if I was drunk, I would rapid-fire dial them until they would pick up the phone. It's like, there's no reasoning in your mind, and you just call and call and call. And that's what Karen was doing.

• 10:08Annie Elise?

  She had been calling him relentlessly, messaging him, leaving him voicemails, and he just was not responding. Ultimately, at some point, she ended up either passing out or purposefully falling asleep on the couch of John's house, waiting for him to come home so that she could, like, see when he walked in the door, maybe call him out on his shit. I don't know. But then when she woke up around 4:50 and he still wasn't home, she was freaked out. And that's when she called Jen. When she called her, she said she didn't remember much from that night, only that they had been at the bar. However, Jen then reminded her that they had actually left the bar together and that her car had been parked at 34 Fairview for that after-party. And that seemed to jog something because Karen's tone then started changing. She said, "Maybe they had gotten into an argument."

• 10:52Annie Elise?

  But again, she was drunk. She couldn't really remember. Now, at this point, she was extremely distressed, so much so that she drove over to Jen's house, arriving around 5:30 a.m. Within minutes, Carrie Roberts, another friend, showed up to Jen's house too, because she, like Jen, had received a very frantic phone call from Karen, where Karen was saying things like, "What if a snowplow hit him? Where is he? I don't, I haven't heard from him. What's going on?" Karen was obviously fully freaked out and in no state to drive. So Jennifer offered to drive her SUV back to John's house, with Carrie following in her car, just kind of being like, "Hey, maybe you missed something. Let's go back to John's house. Let's look for him. Maybe he did get home and you just overlooked him. We'll all go and look together."

• 11:35Annie Elise?

  Then, while they were on the way back to John's house, Karen allegedly blurted out, "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?" Then, once they were at the house too, she was also pointing to the damage on the rear of her SUV. The passenger side taillight was cracked and smashed. So after checking John's house and not finding him there, they decided to continue their search. This time, Carrie took over driving, and Jennifer rode in the passenger seat while Karen was in the back. It was still very early morning hours, though, so it was dark. The wind was blowing. The snow was coming down extremely hard because it was the middle of a blizzard. And they were just frantic, wondering where John was. Is he okay? And visibility was also just extremely low during this drive,

• 12:19Annie Elise?

  because like I said, the winds were just extremely strong. It was dumping snow. So they keep driving. And as they drove down Fairview Road, they approached House 34. And Karen suddenly screamed, "There he is!" And she threw open the door, sprinted toward this snow-covered area near a group of trees. And she found John, lying there, in the snow, unresponsive, partially covered by about six inches of snow. She threw herself on top of him, trying to warm him up, and then started performing CPR. Then, at 6:04 a.m., a 911 call was placed. Two officers arrived on the scene to find a very chaotic and heart-wrenching scene. Three women were just right there in the road waving them

• 13:04Annie Elise?

  down. Two of them meanwhile were bent over John trying to resuscitate him, one of them being Karen. She was sobbing, she was panicked, and according to witnesses, while they were all on the scene trying to make sense of what had happened, she repeated the statement, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." John was placed on a gurney by the EMS and ambulance team and he was transported to Good Samaritan Medical Center. But despite their efforts, he was pronounced dead at 46 years old. Later that day on January 29, troopers went to the hospital to examine John's body. His clothes were wet, they had blood on them, he also only had one Nike sneaker on. Clearly something had happened to John, but nobody was sure what yet. A few days later, on January

• 13:49Annie Elise?

  31, the autopsy report came back and it revealed extensive injuries. Two black eyes, cuts on his face and nose, a large gash on the back of his head, and multiple skull fractures. He also showed signs of hypothermia. So the ME believed that the blunt force trauma happened before the hypothermia set in, which is key, because this would mean that he might have still been alive when he was just left outside to die in the snow, likely unable to move and incapacitated, but still alive. Meanwhile, that same day, police also went to Karen's parents' house. Her Lexus was parked right there in the driveway and sure enough, the rear passenger taillight was visibly

• 14:31Annie Elise?

  shattered. Karen wasn't hiding anything, though. She agreed to speak with the troopers. She told them that after the bar, she dropped John off at 34 Fairview so they could continue their little "cop" party inside and continue the drinking. Then she made a three-point turn and she left. She said she hadn't even noticed any damage to her car until the following morning. So her vehicle was towed to the Canton Police Department, where there it was processed for evidence. And investigators later found broken glass, chipped paint, scratches, and a shattered taillight. They also, though, tested the SUV's rear-view camera and the sensor system. You know when you like reverse and you're about to hit something- And it starts beeping at you really loud. Or now in some of the new cars, your car will actually physically vibrate if you get too close.

• 15:16Annie Elise?

  So they tested the system and it was fully functional. It sent out alerts when backing towards objects. It made noise indicating that had Karen accidentally backed into John, she would have heard the beeping. She would have recalled that. Now here's where things first start to get a little bit shady and questionable. Despite not seeing any pieces of taillight, the morning of the discovery of John's body, which they, by the way, used a leaf blower to move the snow. They found pieces of cocktail glasses. They found blood, but they didn't see any pieces of taillight. But now, hours after they seized Karen's vehicle and put it in the Sallyport, processing it for evidence, the CERT team went back to the scene. This was somewhere around after 5:30 PM.

• 16:00Annie Elise?

  And sure enough, when they were searching again, this time, they found not only the other Nike sneaker that he was missing, but they found two pieces of plastic, one red and one clear. And they say this plastic was buried in the snow, which these pieces matched the broken taillight from Karen's Lexus. And this becomes a key detail in this case and in the trial. And don't worry, I'm going to get to all of that in a little bit here. Meanwhile, at the hospital, Karen's blood was also tested. And around the time, it was a .08. So a little bit like right on the legal limit or just a tiny bit above the legal limit. But this was also after the night out, the night in question.

• 16:41Annie Elise?

  So rewinding time, toxicologists were able to estimate that her blood alcohol around the time of 12:45 AM, when she was dropping John off at the Albert family home, that her BAC would have been between .13 and .29%. That is obviously extremely high. So in February of 2022, Karen was arrested and she was initially charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and leaving the scene of a fatal crash. But then, after presenting additional evidence to a grand jury, the charges ended up being upgraded to second degree murder. And that is when this case took A drastic turn because Karen's defense team came out swinging.

• 17:25Annie Elise?

  They were arguing, no, no, no, not only is she innocent, but she's actually being framed. They claimed John didn't die outside in the snow. He wasn't hit by a car. In fact, he went inside that house at 34 Fairview Road and he was attacked, possibly even attacked by a German shepherd that lived there or possibly people and that there was a fight that broke out. Then they say he was dumped outside, left to die out there in the cold. And with this allegation, which obviously was a very serious allegation and indications of some bigger conspiracy, the defense was pointing fingers at law enforcement and alleging a cover up that involved multiple people who were at that house party, at that house

• 18:08Annie Elise?

  that, by the way, was a cop. Because remember, it was full of cops. It was full of heavy hitters in the community and there was an ATF agent there. There was Chris Albert, who was a cop. I mean, there were definitely people in very important positions inside that house. The defense also highlighted what they believed were inconsistencies in the investigation, such as missing surveillance, a remodel in the basement of that house, a dog that used to live there, the German shepherd that then seemingly vanished after John was killed. Also, the house in question being sold shortly after John's death. I mean, a lot of things that just rubbed people the wrong way. Then there's also the Google search.

• 18:51Annie Elise?

  The Google search heard around the world because apparently Jen McCabe, the one who invited John and Karen over to that house that night, the one who also helped Karen search the following morning for John, she allegedly searched how long to die in the cold at 2:27 a.m., hours before John's body was ever found. So that Google search, it raised a lot of eyebrows. And again, we're going to get into way more of the nitty gritty details of this in just a little bit here. So the defense is alleging a cover up, corruption, conspiracy, Karen being framed. But the prosecution says, no, the case is clear. Karen was drunk. She admitted. that she was "hammered," that she doesn't remember huge parts of the night.

• 19:34Annie Elise?

  Surveillance footage also shows her drinking at multiple bars. Witnesses also said that she was acting erratically at the scene and, in her own words, reciting "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." Let's also not forget that she was the last known person with John. So the case quickly became deeply polarizing, just dividing public opinion. On one side, there were people who believed Karen Reed was the victim of this massive cover-up, this cover-up involving law enforcement and other people who were at the house the night that John died. Yet, on the other side, there were those who were convinced that she was the one responsible for the death of a Boston police officer. And at the heart of all of it was one haunting question that still remained: what really happened to John O'Keefe that night?

• 20:19Annie Elise?

  And the truth was that no matter where people stood, whether they believed in Karen's innocence or her guilt, she was ultimately charged with second-degree murder. And this case first went to trial in 2024.

• 20:37Annie Elise?

  All right, we're going to take a quick break because we need to talk about something that is the least fun, but the most important thing that you will probably ever do, and that is protecting the people you love. Life insurance is really about peace of mind, knowing people are set up for whatever situation no matter what. And PolicyGenius makes finding life insurance so much easier. They're not an insurance company. They are a free online marketplace where you can compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side. And if you don't know where to start, their team of licensed experts can help answer your questions, handle the paperwork, and help you find an affordable policy that actually fits your needs and budget. Make a smart move today to help protect their tomorrow.

• 21:19Annie Elise?

  With PolicyGenius, you can see if you can find a 20-year life insurance policy, starting at just $276 a year for $1 million in coverage. Head to policygenius.com to compare quotes right now. That's policygenius.com.

• 21:43Annie Elise?

  Her first trial began on April 16th, 2024, and it wrapped up on July 1st. And here is the major takeaway, though. Her first trial didn't really seem to provide a lot of clarity. If anything, people felt even more confused by what the truth was. I mean, one day, you had the defense bringing evidence forward that made it seem very significant and very clear-cut that Karen is innocent, that she was being framed. Yet, the next day, the prosecution would come in, whether it was with expert testimony, a new witness, or their own evidence, and it would make you kind of question like, huh, is she guilty after all? It was just a constant back and forth. But in the meantime, her number of supporters, it just continued to grow.

• 22:26Speaker 06

  Second trial, the one where they wanted the first trial, but she's innocent. She's factually innocent. There's no way she did it.

• 22:32Speaker 07

  Justice. I hope it's a start of justice for Karen. There shouldn't be a second trial, for starters, but I hope that the second trial has a positive outcome and arrives at the truth.

• 22:45Annie Elise?

  Free Karen Reed! Now, although her supporters were growing, so did her doubters. And at the end of the day, both sides had presented really significant pieces of evidence to back their arguments. Now, if you follow true crime, you may have heard of cases where it takes anywhere from a few hours to several hours for a jury to be out and deliberate, right? Well, in this case, it took days. Day after day, the jury came back together trying to come up with a unanimous decision, but every day, they failed to do so. Then, eventually, after the fifth day of deliberations, an official announcement was made. The jury was hung. The trial was ultimately declared as a mistrial. And the note that the jury handed to the judge stated,

• 23:28Annie Elise?

  quote, "We find ourselves divided by fundamental differences in our opinions. The divergence in our views is not rooted in a lack of understanding, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry, ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable." So there it was. Not only was the country divided, but the jury was divided. So much so that a mistrial was declared. Now, when it was first announced that the jury couldn't come back and that it was a hung jury and a mistrial, everybody kind of felt like, okay, surely they're not going to try to retry her, especially given what came up during the trial, which I know I keep saying this, don't worry, we will get to that. But for the most part, public opinion was like, this, there's no way that the state is going to retry her.

• 24:12Annie Elise?

  There's so much shadiness, so much sketchiness. The jury was even divided. No way. But sure enough, the state announced that they planned to move forward with a retrial, and it shocked everybody. And a lot of people felt like this decision was ego-driven. Because remember, so many public officials were brought into this during the first trial. There was allegations of the corruption, the conspiracy with these really big, heavy hitters. So when this was announced, a lot of people were like, okay, is it because their ego is like involved in this and they need to prove that they were right about Karen? Why would they go to a retrial if so much of this evidence has been put into question? If things look tainted? If there are suggestions of conspiracy and cover-up?

• 24:56Annie Elise?

  It just felt very odd. And if you're not really heavily involved in the true crime or legal world, then the decision of a mistrial might not really even seem like that huge of a deal to you. You know, the jury couldn't make a decision, big deal. But the reality is, it was much bigger than that. And after all of it was said and done, some of the jurors even started coming forward. And just recently, we're talking like only a month or so ago, one of the jurors did an official interview with Court TV. And what this juror had to say, it felt like a bomb being dropped.

• 25:30Speaker 03

  All 12 of you inside that jury room agree that Karen Reed was not guilty of murder? Count one in that indictment.

• 25:40Speaker 03

  Correct. Okay, now let's roll up our sleeves a little bit. How did, did you vote? Was there, was there a raising of the hands? Was there someone right?

• 25:51Speaker 06

  Writing down what your vote was, was it a secret ballot? How do you know and how was the process? That all 12 agreed that she was not guilty of murder, count one.

• 26:04Speaker 03

  So, we all raised our hands in terms of a vote. And we voted on that first count that we all agreed not guilty. Unfortunately, at that time, we did not fill out any of the paperwork there, nor sign it. So, we were under the understanding that each charge could not be treated separately. And so, we continued to deliberate despite the fact that we had agreed on two of the counts as not guilty.

• 26:40Speaker 06

  And the second count was, was count three. And, and the same process where I guess the foreperson is asking for a vote? And everyone raised their hands?

• 26:51Speaker 03

  And everybody agreed not guilty for those two charges, that's correct.

• 26:55Speaker 06

  Was there, now you mentioned that you didn't fill out paperwork. Was there any discussion about, should we check the box on the verdict slip?

• 27:06Speaker 03

  So, we didn't check the box on the verdict slip because we were still deliberating on the second charge of involuntary manslaughter. And that continued with deliberation. We did send out notes asking for clarification. But unfortunately, we did not ask the question at the time. Should we treat each charge individually and separately?

• 27:34Speaker 06

  So, explain to us why the presumption was that you had to come to a conclusion on all three? Was there any debate among the jurors about whether or not we have to agree on all three counts? Or it can be just one count, or it can be two counts? Was there any discussion or debate amongst the 12 of you about what the rules were when it was time to fill out the verdict slip? And, and determine and let everyone know where you were in these deliberations?

• 28:12Speaker 03

  So, one of the big things that happened was we all agreed and voted, and we kind of not came back to any of those charges. We never revisited them because we had already voted on them. And then we kept on debating on that second charge. And because we kept on debating on that second charge and deliberating,

• 28:39Speaker 03

  that kind of got us caught off guard at the end in terms of how to respond to that and whether to ask. There was a couple of us who did clearly indicate that maybe we should ask about treating each charge independently, but the majority overruled. And essentially, we were left to believe that it needed to be all or nothing.

• 29:07Speaker 06

  See, that's interesting. See, that's fascinating. That's something I would think the folks in Massachusetts would be interested in, is that now you're talking about there's debate about the rules within the jury. See, that's, I look at that, that's the fault of the system, not informing you ahead of time about these things.

• 29:29Annie Elise?

  Now, of course, this is all dependent on whether what this juror was saying was 100% factual or not, right? However, other jurors have now come forward and have agreed with him. So it seems very likely that all of this was true, which, just based on these accounts, it seems like Karen very well could have walked out of the courtroom last summer being acquitted of two different charges, the worst being second-degree murder, which, that is an insane loss for the defense, because she could have been acquitted, she wasn't, based on what they're calling a technicality with the jury, which, unfortunately, that's just the way it is. Until a verdict is actually read and announced, it's not a verdict, it's not, you know... Official, but this was a big blow to the defense.

• 30:14Annie Elise?

  Which let's talk about that technicality or that error because it begs the question, who's at fault for this? It seems like for a murder case, especially one this big, this polarizing and so public, that there shouldn't be an ounce of room for any type of mistake or error. So forgetting to clarify with the jury that each charge can be decided on separately from one another feels kind of like a big mistake. But of course, regardless, there's no going back. The trial was declared a mistrial. That's just that. However, the good news was that Karen's defense team, now learning all of this information, it was in a way like they were striking gold. Because it's very rare that you're handed this kind of information or these kinds of chances in the legal world, especially at a second murder trial. So now it's almost like they had the upper hand.

• 30:59Annie Elise?

  They knew that the jury was swaying in their favor on those other two charges. So they were now going to try to use that to their advantage. So since then, Karen's lawyers and legal team has just been putting in overtime, to say the least. But to be fair, they have to. There really are no other options. I picture every day that they're working on framing me. And every day that they do that and I'm taking the day off, they're getting one day ahead of me. So I only feel relaxed, as relaxed as I can be, if I'm working on the case. When her second trial was officially scheduled, her team did everything that they could possibly do to get two of those three charges against her dropped.

• 31:43Annie Elise?

  Remember, they should have technically been acquitted anyway. Their argument was that in keeping the two charges that the jury had supposedly reached a unanimous decision on, the first being not guilty of second degree murder and the second being not guilty of leaving the scene of an incident in which there was a death, that by keeping those charges in, it goes directly against Karen's constitutional rights as an American. Which of course, people are like, well, how? Why? How would that go against her constitutional rights? Well, they argued that it would be considered double jeopardy. And for those of you who may not be super familiar with that term, it essentially states that in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice after either a conviction or an acquittal.

• 32:24Speaker 03

  We had a lengthy...

• 32:27Speaker 03

  Argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of what we contend to be profound constitutional significance, which is whether or not the Norfolk DA could re-prosecute Ms. Reed when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.

• 32:45Annie Elise?

  And just to give a really simple example of that to everyone, let's use Casey Anthony as a test case here because, you know, I freaking hate her. But she was obviously found not guilty of first degree murder. So technically, she could come out right now and say, "I did it. I killed Kaylee." Or like OJ did, you know, "If I had done it," the book that he wrote or whatever. And she couldn't be tried for Kaylee's murder again. Which, yes, of course, there are always loopholes with that. You could probably still try her for some kind of crime related to the case as a whole or some sort of workaround. But, but never again could it be tried as first degree murder. She was acquitted. So I mean, imagine that. But in Karen's case, those two charges that they had unanimously decided on, according

• 33:28Annie Elise?

  to the jurors, so now that they're being brought in again in the retrial, the defense is saying, "No, no, no, no, that is double jeopardy." However, because that verdict was never read into court, it's not official. It doesn't stand. So I can see why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and even the lower federal courts ultimately decided against dismissing those two charges. Judge Beverly Canoni denied the motion Friday morning. The judge said jurors' private agreements are not the same as a verdict. Because the defendant was not acquitted of any charges, she wrote, and defense counsel consented to the court's declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated. There was no verdict. The verdict was, "We cannot reach unanimous decision," which resulted in the mistrial.

• 34:13Annie Elise?

  In the judge's ruling, she pointed out that during deliberations, defense attorneys asked for the court to move towards a mistrial. Our view is that it's time for Tue Rodriguez. Twice, Reed's attorneys asked for a dynamite instruction. That's the last step before a hung jury leads to

• 34:32Speaker 03

  A mistrial. He was following the very well-founded conventional wisdom, which is if you're the defense and you're in a situation where there's a hung jury, grab the mistrial. But then, when lawyers asked the judge to drop two charges later, they said they never agreed to a mistrial. In her ruling, the judge wrote, "In a remarkable turnaround, defense counsel now argues that the result they twice advocated for was sudden and unexpected."

• 35:02Annie Elise?

  The defense was being disingenuous. They knew that asking for this instruction was implicitly saying, "If a mistrial happens, we accept that." So now, the second trial was scheduled to move forward, one way or another. And now, both sides are playing their cards very, very carefully, which, like I said, it's really rare that you are given a second chance like this for first or second-degree murder charges. So it's almost like that first trial was like, I don't know, some kind of insane trial run. No pun intended, obviously. But like, now they've learned so much information and they can really use that to their benefit, use that to their strengths. They know what the prosecution is going to come out swinging with. They know how to combat that. And it

• 35:46Annie Elise?

  feels like, in my opinion, could possibly have a stronger defense this time. Not to mention, there have been so many new details that have come out in all of the pre-trial madness. I mean, from legal actions both sides have taken, warnings from the judge, new team members and strategies, you name it. So I want to analyze all of it. Not only the stuff from the first trial and all the shady inconsistencies, but also what we can expect now in this second trial. Because although I'm sure we will see a lot of similarities, there's also some things that are being switched up. For starters, there's a new lead prosecutor on the case named Hank Brennan. And pretty much as soon as Hank was put on the case, he got to work. Now, more or less, the defense's entire argument during Karen's

• 36:30Annie Elise?

  first trial was that, of course, she did not kill John, that his death was this major cover-up, right? Well, in preparation for the second trial, Hank, the new prosecutor, asked the court to block Karen's defense team for arguing that anybody else was responsible for John's death. And what's crazy is that motion was partially granted. Basically, the judge ordered that Karen's defense team was not allowed to mention any sort of third party person who was potentially responsible for John's murder. They are, however, allowed to bring it up and provide evidence for their argument during the trial itself, just not during opening statements. So again, partially granted. And although they can still bring it up in the trial, it was a huge point that the

• 37:13Annie Elise?

  defense had made during opening statements in Karen's first trial.

• 37:16Speaker 04

  Karen Reed was framed. Her car never struck John O'Keefe. She did not cause his death. And that means that somebody else did. You will learn that it was no accident that John O'Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton on January 29th of 2022. You will learn that at that address lived a well-known and well-connected law enforcement family in Canton, the Alberts. Because the Alberts were involved and because they had close connections to the investigators

• 37:59Speaker 04

  in this case, Karen Reed was framed for a murder she did not commit.

• 38:07Annie Elise?

  So now with this new partial grant and ruling, right away, it kind of seemed like it was a huge blow to the defense and their strategy this time around. I mean, sure, yes, opening statements aren't usually what make or break a case, but they are very important. It sets the tone for the trial. It is the first touch point of the jury hearing what may or may not have happened. It's the first impression of the case as a whole. Now, could this ruling affect the defense's arguments? I don't know, but I want you to keep the idea of a third party's involvement in mind because we are going to come back to it later. Now, this was not the only thing that this new lead prosecutor was initiating. And at the time of this recording, a lot of things that are being talked about are just pre-trial motions, and they haven't been accepted or denied. So

• 38:52Annie Elise?

  By the time this goes live, there might have been a definitive decision made for some of these. But for the sake of this episode, I do want to go over some of the legal lead up just so that you can have a full understanding. Now, for one thing, the prosecution wanted data from a cellphone belonging to the vlogger Turtle Boy to be included in the evidence. And I talked about this before, but more specifically, they want to see text messages that were exchanged between Karen and Turtle Boy. They want these on display due to what they believe shows Karen's, quote, "consciousness of guilt." And if you're more familiar with this case, or even if you watch the docu-series, you're probably a little bit familiar with Turtle Boy, but you'll know that he has been somebody who has shouted "corruption" from the rooftops pretty much from day one.

• 39:37Annie Elise?

  He also is somebody who is directly responsible for a lot of the inconsistencies and the shadiness to be public knowledge at this point. He brought it to light. And I gotta just say, like him, don't like him, wherever you sit on that, whether you think it's a drama or not, 99.9 of what he has presented has turned out to pan out. So, I mean, he's the reason I believe too that this case got such notoriety and why so many people got involved and in investigating with the cover-up piece of it. Now, in these text messages that the prosecution wants entered into evidence, Karen apparently goes over things with him like the defense's theories, certain materials, and even other types of evidence. Which maybe doesn't seem like it's a big deal on the surface, like, okay, maybe he's

• 40:21Annie Elise?

  a witness listed in this now and they want to go through the data, they want to go through the cellphone records. But the reason that this is such a big deal is because there are actually criminal charges against Turtle Boy for witness intimidation. So it seems like the prosecution is potentially trying to like tie those two things together, almost like Turtle Boy and Karen are kind of working in cahoots with one another. And sure enough, one day before jury selection began, the motion was granted, although the judge specified that any communication between Karen's attorneys and Turtle Boy was completely off limits. So the prosecution was only allowed access to the text messages between him and Karen directly. However, there were a lot of them. Karen Even said on the docu-series herself that she was going through a third party as she

• 41:06Annie Elise?

  was communicating with him in the beginning, but then she just started going to him directly and sending him things directly. So I don't know, we'll see. This obviously wasn't brought up in a huge way in the first trial. So we will see how the prosecution positions this in the second trial. Another motion that the prosecution made is one that has to do with two key experts during Karen's first trial. Their names are Andrew Rentschler and Daniel Wolfe, and both of these men are crash reconstruction experts who testified for the defense during the first trial. And their testimony in Karen's first trial, it was honestly really huge details. It was massive because they both testified that based on their knowledge, John's injuries

• 41:47Annie Elise?

  were not consistent with being hit by a car. And that I would think could make or break a case, right? If you're trying to prove that somebody is innocent, what better way than to bring in experts whose testimony goes directly against what the prosecution is arguing? If they're like, there's no way that these injuries on his arm are consistent with a vehicle hitting him regardless how fast it was going, that right there should be clear cut, right? Well, as it turns out, in one of the prosecution's pre-trial motions, they are requesting that both of these experts not be allowed to testify during the second trial. And the reason that they are citing, the reason they are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed, is because the prosecution is saying that the relationship between Karen's defense attorneys and these

• 42:31Annie Elise?

  experts is quote, "cozier than once portrayed." And there were a few things noted in this filing to back this up. The first was a footnote stating that the new prosecutor Hank has pictures of Andrew at a private luncheon where he and Karen's dad were speaking together. Apparently Hank also provided documents and a $24,000 invoice, which allegedly shows Karen's lawyers contacted the witnesses, despite the defense claiming that they had never met. So they're alleging, look, they're buddy buddy, they're chummy, of course they're gonna testify and say whatever they need to say to be on Karen and the defense's side, not only because they're paid experts, but also because they're quote, "cozier than once portrayed," saying they- They've paid them, they've had private lunches with them, like clearly this is a conflict

• 43:15Annie Elise?

  of interest, which I gotta say, I understand the prosecution wanting them removed because their testimony was so detrimental the first time around. So they are of course going to try to stop them from testifying in the second trial, right? Now Karen's team on the other hand, wants any mention of that payment, that $24,000 payment to the consulting agency to either be partially or fully excluded from the trial. They don't want it brought up, which again, I understand because it doesn't look great, right? But what I will say, just in case you again, don't follow a lot of these trials regularly, experts that the defense or the prosecution bring in typically are paid. So the fact

• 43:55Annie Elise?

  that they were paid at all, isn't really, in my opinion, that surprising or shocking, but I think what they're trying to say is that the amount was so high that maybe there was some colluding, something like that. Just again, power of suggestion, right? Now Hank hasn't just been active with his own court strategies, but has also been vocal in regards to the defense's motions and strategies as well. In late February of this year, the defense had filed a motion to dismiss, and this accused the prosecution in Karen's first trial of quote, "extraordinary government misconduct." And one of the main things that's discussed in this motion had to do with the evidence that was presented by the prosecution. More specifically, the surveillance camera video

• 44:36Annie Elise?

  of Karen's SUV, once it was taken into police custody. Remember I told you they seized her vehicle, took it for evidence, that's where they saw the shattered taillight, and then hours later, coincidentally, the CERT team who responded again back to 34 Fairview to continue their investigation, found pieces of the taillight, even though they had not been found that entire morning, even when using a leaf blower to move the snow. So her defense team has been arguing that the damage to her taillight could have been damaged or made worse after it was taken in. And the fact that the video evidence provided was inverted, was a huge red flag. Because what I mean by inverted, is it was almost like mirrored. So when they were looking at her car in this surveillance footage, they

• 45:20Annie Elise?

  thought that what they were seeing was- The right passenger taillight and nobody was going near the taillight. Nobody was walking by it. So they were like, there's nobody who would have messed with it. Nobody who would have shattered it or taken pieces from it. There's no way that there's some bigger conspiracy here. But then upon closer look, the footage had been inverted, meaning that what they were actually looking at where nobody was walking by was the driver's side taillight, not the passenger side. And when you looked on the opposite side, that was a little bit difficult to see because it was on the opposite side of the camera. So it was kind of like hidden behind the car. You could see somebody standing there. So again, it's just one more question that is raised here about what's the truth?

• 46:02Annie Elise?

  There's so many questions and I'm somebody where it's like where there's smoke, there's fire. And there are so many inconsistencies in this case to be explained away by pure coincidence. That's my opinion. Whether or not Karen, and I'll get to this in a minute, but whether or not Karen did it. Obviously people are still divided, but it's my opinion that like there are enough inconsistencies to certainly raise reasonable doubt. 1,000% I digress. Let me continue and then I will get on, I will go back to that and like touch more about, you know, the guilt and the innocence of it all. But going back to the car and the surveillance footage. Like I said, Hank was now speaking up about it. And to put it bluntly, he claimed that this video being inverted was just due to the camera's settings. That's all. It was just, it wasn't intentional.

• 46:46Annie Elise?

  It was just the settings. It was, you know, not even a glitch, which I don't know if that's possible. I don't know if it's bullshit. I don't know if it's solid proof. Because again, what people are alleging is no, they purposefully inverted the footage so that it looked as though to a normal person's naked eye that they were looking at the passenger taillight. And unless somebody looked really closely and noticed that it was inverted, they never would have caught on to it. But he's just saying, no, no, no, that was just the camera's settings. Nobody tried to mess with this or like lead somebody astray. So all of that stuff I just went over was coming from the prosecution's side of things. Now I want to dive in a little deeper into what Karen and her defense team have been up to the last several months.

• 47:34Annie Elise?

  All right, this one might feel a little wild at first, but organ meats are some of the most nutrient-dense foods out there. I know, I know, I know, wild, right? But let's be honest, nobody is cooking liver for like everyday meals. I totally get it. However, Primal Queen takes that whole idea and it makes it actually doable. It's made specifically for women and it packs grass-fed beef organs, liver, uterus, and ovaries into two easy capsules a day. And you get the B12, iron, zinc, and vitamin A that supports everyday wellness, but without the cooking. Plus, it's gluten-free, non-GMO, and third-party tested. So it's ancient nutrition that is made simple for modern women. And

• 48:17Annie Elise?

  look, when I first heard about this, I was kind of like, what on earth are you even talking about? But then, like, when I was like, eating organ meat, like, are you, do you know who I am? Like, are you out of your mind? Like, no, not for me. But when I started looking into it and the benefits from it, and, hi, you don't have to actually eat it here, you know, you just take the capsules, I was like, this is going to be a game changer for me. And I'm going to do it because I realize how great these ingredients are. Now, for a limited time only, you can shop their biggest sale of the year. Just visit primalqueen.com. That's primalqueen.com and you will get their huge holiday sale. Then, after you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support the show. Let them know I sent you. Go get it. Check it out. I promise you, it's all the rage right now.

• 49:00Speaker 00

  Time for a quick break to talk about McDonald's. Start your morning with the $6.00 McGriddles Extra Value Meal, featuring your choice of a Sausage Egg and Cheese McGriddles or Bacon Egg and Cheese McGriddles, plus crispy hash browns and a small premium roast coffee. Sweet, savory, crispy, and caffeinated, it's everything your morning ordered, all for just $6.00. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing at participating McDonald's.

• 49:31Annie Elise?

  Karen's defense team has, of course, grown since the first trial. And interestingly enough, a new addition on her team was technically involved in her first trial, though under a different job. A woman named Victoria George served as an alternate juror in Karen's first case. But now she's going into this second trial as part of Karen's legal team. Apparently during Karen's first trial, she was just so moved by what was going on and what she was witnessing and seeing that she felt like she had to get more involved. She even gave an official statement about her involvement, which reads, "I was a fair-minded juror who left this trial questioning the integrity of the system long before the defense filed a motion to dismiss with allegations of jury tampering.

• 50:15Annie Elise?

  It is the Reed case itself and the fact that it is still being brought that has left many in Massachusetts wary, distrustful, and scared of our system. As a lawyer, this reality saddens me even more because I remember how much faith I had in our system as an optimistic law student." Which I haven't heard that this move will have any sort of implications, and I haven't heard a ton of people talking about it, but I do think that that is very interesting, right? An alternate juror who is a lawyer, watched this whole first trial unfold and was so moved by it and felt like there was such an injustice that she is now going to be a part of Karen's legal team for the second trial. That kind of speaks really loudly, right?

• 50:58Annie Elise?

  Now, as far as new strategies go, it seems like some new witnesses have been added to the list for both the prosecution and the defense. And one of the main witnesses that people are commenting on is Karen's dad, because he is listed as a witness on the prosecution's list. And all we really know about this in particular is that the lead prosecutor previously had said that Karen's dad's testimony is important due to, quote, "various admissions made by the defendant to him." So only time will tell what exactly these alleged admissions were, but I for one am extremely curious to see what is said. I mean, is it going to be something that literally has my jaw on the floor, like an outright confession?

• 51:38Annie Elise?

  Or is it just circumstantial evidence? Only time will tell. Now, one name that stood out to me on the defense's witness list is Michael Morrissey, because Michael is the district attorney of Norfolk County, and he previously made his thoughts and feelings on this case pretty well-known.

• 51:54Speaker 06

  This will be the first statement of its kind in my dozen years as Norfolk District Attorney. The harassment of witnesses in the murder prosecution of Karen Reed is absolutely baseless.

• 52:08Speaker 06

  It should be an outrage to any decent person, and it needs to stop. Innuendo is not evidence. False narratives are not evidence. However, what evidence does show is that John O'Keefe never entered the home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton the night he died.

• 52:29Speaker 06

  Location data from his phone, recovered from the lawn beneath his body when he was transported to the hospital, shows that this phone did not enter that home.

• 52:39Speaker 06

  Eleven people have given statements that they did not see John O'Keefe enter the home at 34 Fairview that night. Zero people

• 52:50Speaker 06

  have said that they saw him enter the home. Zero, no one.

• 52:55Speaker 06

  Some have, without any evidence, pointed to 18-year-old Colin Albert, a nephew of the homeowner, and accused him of attacking John O'Keefe as he entered the home. But phone evidence shows O'Keefe never entered the home at all.

• 53:11Speaker 06

  Testimony from witnesses tell us that 18-year-old Colin Albert had left his uncle's home before John O'Keefe and Karen Reed had arrived outside the residence. There was no fight inside that home. John O'Keefe did not enter the home. Colin Albert, the young man being vilified, was not present when Reed's vehicle and John O'Keefe arrived in the

• 53:32Annie Elise?

  This is a false narrative. I mean, that was pretty obvious, how he felt about the case and about Karen's innocence, right? So needless to say, I'm extremely curious how and why he ended up on the defense's witness list, and what, if anything, this testimony might offer as far as new information goes. Now, as for new strategies on the defense's side of things, let's get into that third-party culprit strategy that I briefly mentioned earlier. Now, the idea of a third-party defense isn't exactly new, per se. Her team has been arguing since day one that she is innocent and that somebody else killed John O'Keefe.

• 54:09Speaker 07

  So it feels we're the only ones fighting for the truth of what happened to John O'Keefe. And me, and my family, and my attorneys, and my team have marshaled every resource to get to the truth. It just feels like no one else wants it. And Karen, just to be clear, you didn't do it.

• 54:24Speaker 07

  We know who did it, Steve. We know. And we know who spearheaded this cover-up. You all know.

• 54:30Speaker 03

  And no, she didn't do it. No, she didn't do it. This is an innocent woman. She didn't do it.

• 54:35Speaker 07

  I tried to save his life. I tried to save his life at 6:00 in the morning. I was covered in his... Well, I was the only one trying to save his life.

• 54:42Annie Elise?

  So nothing really new. However, the focus of who her team will be pointing the blame towards now is a little bit new. So her defense team previously stated that going into this second trial, they really wanted to focus more on three specific people: Colin Albert, Brian Albert, and Brian Higgins. However, Judge Canoni ruled that Colin could not be named due to insufficient evidence. So pretty much, they're going to be focusing on both of the Bryans, Brian Higgins and Brian Albert. And here's what we know about these two guys. First, there's always been some speculation about whether or not there was some kind of fight inside the Albert home that evening. Whether or not that's actually something that is just hearsay and rumors, it's still up in the air. But I want to start with Brian Albert.

• 55:26Annie Elise?

  Now, of course, the most obvious thing is that John was found deceased on his lawn, you know, right in front of his house. But it's more than that, because Karen's team argues that Brian was known for being a bully, particularly among his other colleagues, his other law enforcement colleagues.

• 55:43Annie Elise?

  Apparently, there was even a time or two when he was known to punch other coworkers after a night of heavy drinking. Like, he just couldn't handle his alcohol and he had a short fuse and would just react. So, the idea of him getting into a fight with John, it doesn't really seem all that out there. But then, there are some more circumstantial things which the defense believes shows that Brian's consciousness of guilt. The biggest thing is that Brian failed to ever come out of the house and speak with all of the first responders that morning. The people who were swarming his front yard, trying to save John O'Keefe's life. And many people on both sides are saying, like, "That's really weird." He himself is a trained first responder. He's a big-name cop in the town. And there's a dead body on his lawn, and he doesn't even come out of his house?

• 56:28Annie Elise?

  I mean, weird, yes, but does it prove his guilt? Not necessarily. It is, though, pretty strange. Another thing is that the investigators never went into the house to take photos, to look at a potential crime scene, to ask questions, to just look around. And that's concerning because it suggested that John could have been murdered inside that house. Yet, nobody even went inside to take a look around. And something I'm still stuck on that does kind of coincide with Brian Albert's possible guilt is the topic of that Google search by Jen McCabe. Remember, Jen is Brian's sister-in-law. And the defense claims that at 2:27 a.m., Jen searched "how long to die in the cold." The search was then later deleted, though she claimed on the stand during the first

• 57:12Annie Elise?

  trial that she's not the one who deleted it, that she doesn't even know how to delete a search, and that it's all, once again, a big coincidence. But I genuinely can't think of any reason why she would have been Googling that at 2:27 in the morning. Especially, that night in particular. It's just something I cannot wrap my head around. However, I will say that both Jen and the prosecution argue that the search was actually made much later, that it was made at around 6:23 a.m. That, you know how you have in Google, like, different tabs that open? That she went to a tab that she had been using at 2:00 in the morning and searched "how long to die in the cold" at the direction of Karen while they were on the scene, and that it just triggered that. Previous timestamp. It was a fresh new search.

• 57:56Annie Elise?

  It wasn't an old one, which even though it's only a couple hours apart, it does make a world of difference, right? Because on one hand, if it happened at 2:27, that was hours before John's body was even discovered. On the other hand, if it happened after 6:00 a.m., once his body was discovered, that would make more sense. And let's just say it was a glitch or the way, you know, that Apple has the different pop-up windows when you're searching on Google. Let's say she did search it at 6:23 a.m. Why would you delete that search? Why would you need to delete it? Why would you ever delete a search like that? It just makes no sense. I mean, if you found your friend and you're curious, like, oh, my God, he's here. How long does it take to die in the cold? I get that, but why would you delete it after the fact? That feels a little shady.

• 58:39Annie Elise?

  Another thing that stuck out during the first trial, too, was remember how it was alleged that while they were on the scene, Karen repeated the phrase, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." Well, during the first trial, they brought in several witnesses who said they heard her say this. First responders, friends, people who were there on site saying, "We heard it, we heard it, we heard it." However, every single person who testified that was picked apart because that statement was never written down in any single report. During all of this, nobody ever wrote, "She said, 'I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.'" However, what they did write down in the report was the question that she had asked of, "Could I have hit him?" So now you have multiple people saying, "She said, 'I hit him, I hit him, I hit him,'"

• 59:24Annie Elise?

  yet it's nowhere in the report from first responders on the scene, any even interviews immediately in the aftermath, none of that. All that there is in the report is the question of, "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?" So their testimony was quickly picked apart. And again, just goes to the credibility of like, "Did you guys really hear that? Why wasn't it in the report then if that was such a significant thing that you heard as a trained professional reporting to the scene of a crime? Why wouldn't you have included that in your statement, right?" Let's also talk about the lead investigator of this case, Proctor, because, boy, oh, boy, I could go on and on about Proctor for its own episode. But in the first trial, a lot of his text messages and things that he said about Karen

• 1:00:07Annie Elise?

  were put on full display, where he was talking about nudes, how he hasn't seen her nude yet. He called her a "see you next Tuesday," just very vulgar, unprofessional, horrific messages. And we're going to talk more about Proctor in a minute, but these are just some of the things that had been coming up in the first trial, which, in my opinion, rightly so, created a lot of reasonable doubt for the jury, which, obviously, we know it did, right? Another piece of all of that that didn't quite add up was the pieces of taillight. Because remember, they seized her car in the afternoon. It's taken to the Sally Port. Some of the footage is like, there's a lot of discrepancies going on with the footage. Then they send the CERT team out to 34 Fairview that evening in the dark at, I think it was

• 1:00:51Annie Elise?

  5:46 PM, and while they're searching, they find these pieces of taillight right there in the snow, some of them even on top of the snow, which, earlier when they were first responding at the crime scene and doing the initial search, as I said, they used a leafblower to move the snow. They found pieces of clear cocktail glass in the snow. That's how much visibility there was. So you're telling me that they could find clear pieces of cocktail glass but didn't see red taillight plastic until after Karen's car was seized, taken to the Sally Port, and somebody was near the back corner? Then the CERT team came, and within moments, they found these pieces of taillight? Kind of feels suspicious, like, that's suspicious? That's weird?

• 1:01:37Annie Elise?

  And pieces of the taillight kept showing up days later. Every time they would go out there to do a search, more pieces were found. And what's so interesting about this, too, is because, yeah, while on paper, it makes sense, okay, she may have backed into him, shattered her taillight, hit him with such force, took off, the pieces of taillight are left behind, they don't see them. It doesn't appear that that's accurate, or that it can be proven without doubt, because when they went back and looked on Ring camera footage of Karen at John's house, when she's pulling out of John's house at 5:00 in the morning to go over to Jen McCabe, you can see- Her reverse into John's car. And if you zoom in on the wheel of John's car, when she hits it and reverses into it, it moves.

• 1:02:21Annie Elise?

  And it's that back corner that bumps into his car, the passenger taillight that bumps into it. So that easily could have been when her taillight was first shattered. It doesn't mean that it was shattered the night that she was dropping him off at the house party. Again, not concrete evidence either way, for whatever side you stand with, but enough to feel bizarre and make you question things and have a little bit of uncertainty, right? Then we also have the Brian Higgins of it all. Because Brian Higgins, in the weeks leading up to John's death, was sending very flirtatious messages back and forth with Karen. And it's worth mentioning that during Karen's first trial, her lawyers claimed to have caught Brian in a lie while he was on the stand. Brian, of course, denied that he was lying, though.

• 1:03:05Annie Elise?

  Now, where this idea comes from, though, let me give a little bit of backstory. Is the night after the house party, when he was leaving the Albert house. And remember, he's an ATF agent. He's buddy buddy chummy with all of them. So he's now leaving the Albert house. And Brian Higgins testified that he went to the police station so that he could help move patrol cars so that the lot could be snowplowed. Because remember, it was a blizzard, a lot of snow was coming in. And there was just this massive snowstorm. Then he said, he headed home afterwards, he ate a little, drank a little, and then he fell right to sleep. But one thing that he made a really huge point to mention was that he was woken up the following morning by all of the frantic phone calls from his friends and from his colleagues. Making it seem like that was the first he ever heard about any news, the first he heard

• 1:03:50Annie Elise?

  about anything related to John, that he hadn't even talked to anyone on the phone until he woke up and received all those phone calls. Here's the thing, though. His call logs tell a very different story. Because at 2:22 a.m., right before that Google search that people have in question of how long to die in the snow, but at 2:22 a.m., there was a one-second phone call from Brian Albert to Brian Higgins. Higgins then called him back 17 seconds later. And when he did, the call connected. For about 22 seconds. However, Brian Albert claimed on the stand that this was all just a butt dial, a huge coincidence. He didn't purposefully call Higgins. He was being intimate

• 1:04:34Annie Elise?

  with his wife at the time and something hit his pocket and it caused him to butt dial him, which, okay, fair, makes sense. But what about 17 seconds later, when Higgins called you back? Because Higgins also said, "Oh, no, no, no. That was a butt dial on my end. I butt dialed Chris Albert. I didn't even see that I had a missed call. I was drinking, or I was asleep, or whatever his story was. Like, that was, it must have been a butt dial, not on purpose." Which, my question for you out there is, what is the likelihood of two people who are somehow involved in this investigation and this case, where somebody ends up being found dead on Brian Albert's lawn, what is the likelihood that Brian Albert

• 1:05:16Annie Elise?

  and Brian Higgins just coincidentally butt dialed each other at the same time, in the middle of the night? Right around the time, there's also a questionable Google search about how long to die in the cold. Now, as if that is not shady enough, it gets even worse. Because Brian Higgins destroyed his phone, and also destroyed his SIM card, getting rid of any possible way to digitally trace what really happened here. He put both of them in a trash bag, he drove to a military base, and he tossed them in a dumpster, after destroying both of them. And get this, this disposal was the day before, one day before.

• 1:05:59Annie Elise?

  He was given formal notice, "Don't destroy your phone." Literally, the day before, they formally said, "Don't destroy your phone. We're gonna be looking at it as evidence." He goes off, cracks the SIM, cracks the phone, puts it in a trash bag, drives to a military base, and puts it in a dumpster. That's weird? That's suspicious? Like, I don't know many cops who are doing that unless you have something to hide, right? And although he wasn't given the formal notice not to destroy his phone yet, because remember, he disposed of it one day prior before he was given that notice, who's to say there wasn't someone internally? Who tipped him off that that formal notice was coming down the pike. There's just so many questions and shady shit that is going on in this case.

• 1:06:42Annie Elise?

  And look, I don't get super conspiracy often, but something is weird here. Something is not right. Now Jen McCabe also had more bizarre phone activity, aside from just that Google search, because she also called John rapid fire multiple times in a 10 minute period. Now, this was around 12:45 a.m., right when Karen said she dropped John off at the house, or shortly after. And Jen, what did she claim these phone calls were for? These rapid fire calls to John in a 10 minute period? What do you think? Butt dial. How many, like, how many people in this situation in this house are butt dialing people? Like, make it make sense, right? The defense is of course arguing, saying, no, it's because something happened inside that house.

• 1:07:27Annie Elise?

  There was an altercation, whether it was Brian Higgins, who had been flirting with Karen, and there was an altercation between him and John O'Keefe, whether it was something else going on, there was an altercation in that house. Then, as they're cleaning up, removing things around, or frantically trying to like, whatever with the scene, that they were looking for his, John's phone, and they couldn't find it. So, they had Jen call him multiple times to try to find the phone. I mean, how many times have you misplaced your phone and you're like, hey, can you call my phone so I can find it? Call it again, call it again, I'm gonna go from this room to this room to this room and look for it. So, the defense is saying, that's why she rapid fire called him, because they were looking for his phone. Now, was that the truth? Or was this just an on the spot lie?

• 1:08:08Annie Elise?

  I don't really know, but if I was a betting person, I would bet money that all of these call logs are once again gonna be brought up during the second trial. And even though Colin Albert was excluded from the defense being able to focus on him, it is worth mentioning why the defense questioned him in the first place, because they were stuck on two key things. The first being that his knuckles had clear evidence of being red and like, super messed up, almost as if he had been in some kind of fistfight, which he claimed wasn't the case. I think his reasoning for it was actually that he fell on some ice, or something like That though his knuckles were all banged up and red and so they're like, it looks like you were in a fight. He's like, no, I fell on the ice. I mean, what the truth is, who knows?

• 1:08:50Annie Elise?

  But what sticks out to me is that his name was left out of all of the police reports. And that seems like it could have been a very deliberate thing to have been done. Or maybe just a completely innocent coincidence mistake. You be the judge, but like I said, the judge ruled that there wasn't enough sufficient evidence to place any kind of blame on Colin as a third party person. And I do, before I get into the balance of this, I do want to just quickly say, since we're on the topic of Colin, there is a rumor and a theory out there. And let me be crystal clear, there is no proof of this. It is all talk. You can probably find more information on some other channels about this, but I was told this information by somebody who has been glued to this case from day one.

• 1:09:34Annie Elise?

  And it is rumored and suggested that Colin possibly is a dealer in the area. And specifically, I believe cocaine and that John was kind of on his scent, like on his trail, knowing what he was up to. So that night when he got to the house, to this house party, Colin saw John come in and didn't like that. And that the fight did break out between Colin and John. And that because Colin is related to Brian Albert, the owner of the home, and he's in with all of these cops and stuff. The suggestion is that they tried to cover for him. I've also heard allegations that perhaps the dealing is not just on a public level,

• 1:10:16Annie Elise?

  but also there are people in the department who partake in this drug, if you catch my drift. And so that's why this was all like a bigger scheme of a cover up. Again, that is all alleged rumor and theory, but I thought it's worth mentioning because the defense did want to bring Colin in. They did say it looked like he had been in a fight and that is some of the information that word on the street is saying of what went down or could have gone down. Now, this next thing that I want to go over doesn't necessarily have to do with any pre-trial hearings, motions to dismiss or anything like that. But it is still very important to go over because literally just Hours after Karen's first trial, Michael Proctor, that dirtbag who sent all those text messages, called her a "see you next Tuesday",

• 1:11:00Annie Elise?

  was doing some shady stuff throughout the investigation, he was relieved from duty. And then weeks later, he was suspended without pay. Now, this came after he was questioned during Karen Reed's first trial about all of those unprofessional messages that he had sent his friends, calling her a whack job, a cunt, among all of these other things. So he was suspended without pay. But just recently, in March of 2025, he was officially fired. The superintendent released a statement following his termination stating, "Our mission to deliver the highest level of police services depends on the public's trust in our professionalism and integrity. It is incumbent upon me, as well as every member of this department, to hold one another accountable

• 1:11:41Annie Elise?

  when any member compromises our mission by failing to uphold our values. As superintendent, my role demands that I do what is in the best interest of the department. My decision to terminate Mr. Proctor follows a thorough, fair, and impartial process. I have weighed the nature of the offenses, their impact on our investigative integrity, and the importance of safeguarding the reputations of our dedicated women and men in the state police. This decision reflects our unwavering commitment to upholding our values, enhancing public trust, and ensuring the highest standards of service and accountability. Finally, recognizing the ways in which this process has affected the family of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe,

• 1:12:25Annie Elise?

  I would also like to renew our condolences to them." So, take that statement how you will, but with Michael being fired, this technically did close the internal investigation that was ongoing into him and into his conduct. But I have no doubt that this will, once again, be a huge topic of discussion during this next trial, especially when it comes to his credibility. Now, one of the other things I want to go over is some of the more questionable things that have transpired during this case as a whole. Not just Karen's first trial or all the pre-trial stuff that's going on right now, but we're talking literally since the very moment that John was found dead. I mean, it's hard to talk about this case without talking about all of the major screw-ups and possible corruption involved, right? I mean, the case is very, very intriguing

• 1:13:10Annie Elise?

  and very compelling in part for those very reasons.

• 1:13:18Speaker 00

  Time for a quick break to talk about McDonald's. Start your morning with the $6 McRiddles Extra Value Meal. Featuring your choice of a sausage, egg and cheese McRiddles, or bacon, egg and cheese McRiddles. Plus crispy hash browns and a small premium roast coffee. Sweet, savory, crispy, and caffeinated. It's everything your morning ordered, all for just $6. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing at participating McDonald's.

• 1:13:49Annie Elise?

  I keep talking about the defense getting this second chance and how it's a positive thing. Now, how they have so much more information, how they're armed with maybe a better strategy. But for Karen's friends, family, and supporters, it also feels at times like a slap in the face. Like, she keeps getting screwed over again, and again, and again, and that this second trial should not even be happening.

• 1:14:09Speaker 07

  We're here to shed light on the corruption that exists in this state. And I feel humbled by it in some ways. It's a nightmare, and I wish it never happened. But I also feel that I can handle this, and I don't feel weaker. As it goes, I feel stronger. And the public support is a big... The restoration of my reputation, which was a big loss, has re-energized me, has energized me, rejuvenated me. But this is what I'm here for. And I get messages constantly, mainly from people I've never met, and from people that are suffering. And it's a lot of women that have either had like a physical loss of a spouse or a child,

• 1:14:52Speaker 07

  or an illness similar to mine with a colostomy bag, or have been the victim of, you know, police harassment, or some type of unfairness with the criminal justice system. And there's a lot of suffering in this world. Mine is just very visible. But I do feel...

• 1:15:18Speaker 07

  Honored isn't the right word, but I'm humbled by it. And I feel like this is your purpose. And a lot of people have purposes thrust on them that they didn't really want.

• 1:15:26Annie Elise?

  And let's talk about the judge in this case, Judge Beverly Canoni. People are not fans of her, to say the least. Just in the more recent months, as far as Karen's second trial is concerned, people have been really picking apart her actions and really questioning them. For example, in March, Karen's defense team filed to add a fifth lawyer to their team, New York Attorney Mark Bedeiro. And this request was denied by the judge, who claimed that due to Mark also representing Turtle Boy in his own case, that it would be a conflict of interest in Karen's case. Karen's supporters, though, feel like it was a direct violation against her right to counsel, that she could pick whoever she wanted her counsel to be.

• 1:16:09Annie Elise?

  Even more recently, Judge Canoni placed a buffer zone outside of the courthouse in preparation for this trial. The buffer states that within 200 feet of the courthouse, nobody is allowed to wear pink, nobody is allowed to hold signs, and nobody is allowed to protest. And as we know, hundreds of people have been outside of the courthouse, wearing pink in support of Karen, holding the signs that say "Free Karen Reed," and it has been just kind of, I mean, honestly, yes, a circus. But allegedly, this decision for this buffer zone was due to some of the jurors in Karen's first trial, claiming that they could hear all of these protesters outside while they were in deliberations. However, as you can imagine, people feel like this is far from being fair, and that

• 1:16:51Annie Elise?

  it also violates their right to free speech and their First Amendment rights. A number of Karen's supporters even came together to file a federal lawsuit against this decision. What makes the judge superior over everybody else to, you know, constitutional rights? Seems Beverly Canoni don't know what they are. So those are just a few of the things that people aren't happy with when it comes to Judge Canoni. But trust me, there are plenty of more reasons on who she's allowing as witnesses, who she's allowing in the trial, what she's doing during jury selection, and who she was vetoing as a juror but then allowing in. I mean, the list goes on and on. There are plenty of more people who are upset about many things, especially when it comes to the pre-trial motions.

• 1:17:32Annie Elise?

  For example, Judge Canoni allowed one of the prosecution's motions to exclude testimony from a retired FBI agent named Michael Easter. The defense was planning to call Easter as an expert witness so that he could discuss the quality of the police investigation, whether it was competent, whether it was compromised, that sort of thing. But Judge Canoni allowed this motion from the prosecution to exclude his testimony. And her reasoning for excluding the testimony was because, quote, "Easter's proposed testimony concerns basic aspects of a police investigation which are within the common knowledge of a layperson." Which, I don't know, make your own decision on that, I guess. Now, on the topic of corruption and feeling like this case has been just a major slap

• 1:18:15Annie Elise?

  in the face to Karen, I also have to bring up one last thing. Karen's case hasn't been the first to question the integrity of Norfolk's county law enforcement and the investigators. It is not the first case to suggest corruption, cover-up, and conspiracy. Not at all. You may have heard our episode about Sandra Birchmore. Sandra Birchmore's case is one that immediately comes to mind, and while these cases aren't necessarily linked, they do have many similarities. The main similarity being in poor police work and investigating, with then, you know, a little salted, added treat of potential corruption involved. But Sandra, for those of you who aren't familiar with the case, and if you want to take the deep dive, you can search it after this episode, but Sandra was a young woman in her early

• 1:19:00Annie Elise?

  twenties, and she was found dead in Canton in 2021. Her death was originally ruled as a suicide, but the truth that came out was so much worse. She was part of this explorers program from a very young age, where it's basically all these young, I don't know if you'd call them cadets, maybe you could, but all these young people who aspire to either learn from law enforcement, be in law enforcement one day, and their mentors are many men, primarily in powerful law enforcement positions. And Sandra was groomed by one of these men, from, I believe, starting at just 13 years old. And she then ended up, he was married, had kids, and she ended up getting pregnant by this guy. She wanted to keep the baby. She was excited to keep the baby.

• 1:19:45Annie Elise?

  And then she was found deceased in her apartment, I believe, hanging from a doorknob, and it looked as though she had taken her own life. However, when we first talked about this, we talked about all of the reasons that that didn't add up. There was a lot of inconsistencies, a lot of things that just did not make sense. And sure enough, her police officer boyfriend, her creepo police officer who had been grooming her for years, ended up being arrested and charged with her murder. He hasn't been convicted yet, so it's all alleged, of course, at this point, but it's disgusting. It is truly disgusting. And then, of course, he is being accused of staging the scene. And he killed her because he didn't want her to ruin his life with his family, and then he staged it because he's a cop.

• 1:20:27Annie Elise?

  And it was ruled as a suicide initially, but then they took a closer look after a lot of public demanded it. And sure enough, he's now been arrested and charged with her murder. So again, it's the Sandra Birchmore case, and you can go search it on my channel or my podcast after this if you want the deep dive. It's gross, though, just a warning. Now, the reason I bring it up is because, interestingly enough, Karen's case and Sandra's case potentially have, and I use potentially very carefully, but they have potentially crossed paths. Because one of the lead detectives, Lieutenant John Fanning, was heavily involved in Sandra's death being ruled a suicide.

• 1:21:07Annie Elise?

  And last year, during Karen's first trial, his involvement with the jury ended up being brought into question. Because Karen's team alleges that he was involved in reporting an incident during the trial, which ultimately led to a juror being dismissed. However, the judge claims that he had no contact with the jury whatsoever. So does this necessarily mean that something sketchy is afoot? No, not necessarily. But it does seem to be something that weighs heavily on the minds of people who believe that Karen is truly innocent. They already don't trust this judge, so I mean, her word doesn't really mean much, right? And I think that the thought process is that this guy could have also been involved in a cover-up of Sandra's Which shows he could have been doing shady business in Karen's trial as well.

• 1:21:51Annie Elise?

  That they're all connected, they all work together, and that there is a lot of history with conspiracy and cover up with this county. Again, just to be clear, it's all speculation, all accusations, but it is something that I have seen a lot of, so I wanted to throw it out there for you. Now, as far as the details of the theories of what really happened at 34 Fairview Road, I want to discuss a few of the main ones. So one theory suggests that John O'Keefe went inside this house and that he might have been attacked by a dog, not hit by a car. And according to this theory, John was already inside the house on Fairview Road, and he was potentially injured during some sort of altercation, possibly involving a dog bite.

• 1:22:33Annie Elise?

  Supporters of this theory point to his injuries on his arm, and they speculate that a German shepherd who was owned by some people in this house could have played a role. This German shepherd was also between 70 and 90 pounds, and admittedly, according to the owners, the Alberts, he was not good with strangers. And people have long suggested that the injuries on John's arm are not consistent with being hit with a taillight, that they look more like narrow gashes, superficial wounds, bites, claw marks, things like that. And in fact, a defense expert forensic pathologist weighed in on this back in the first trial and said, "His wounds are consistent with bite wounds and scratch wounds."

• 1:23:15Annie Elise?

  Specifically, that there are several patterns of superficial wounds that are consistent with teeth marks. She also said that she has seen hundreds of car accident victim photos, hundreds of them, in her, over the course of her career, and that when she saw these photos of John O'Keefe's arm, she quickly ruled out the wounds as being attributed to a car accident. Something else that I thought was interesting from the first trial, going back to this theory, is that there was no dog DNA found on his arm or on his person. However, there was pig DNA. And that's really weird, because it's explained that pig DNA could show up on somebody from food, or from bacon, or bacon grease, but also that it could be-

• 1:23:57Annie Elise?

  Pig DNA from dog treats or from a pig ear that say a German shepherd was chewing. So this was one of the theories, right? That a dog was involved in the altercation and that's what those marks are from. Not that the dog is necessarily the cause of death, but that he was involved in this and that he could forensically be linked to John O'Keefe. And sure enough, notably, this dog was rehomed shortly after John's death in May of 2022, about four months later. So some people find that incredibly suspicious and potentially indicative of a cover up. Like, why are you rehoming your dog who is now a topic of conversation as being a link in this murder investigation when you've had this dog for so long?

• 1:24:42Annie Elise?

  Like, make it make sense, right? So once again, it's like, it's a theory that really fuels the idea that Karen Reed is being framed and that the true events of that night are all being concealed. I mean, think back to the SIM card being destroyed, the phone being destroyed, the butt dials back and forth, the rapid fire phone calls, the taillight not being found until after her car was seized and way later by a team, even though the team had already done a huge search. Like, there are so many things here that do not add up. And another big theory in this case centers around the basement of the home where John O'Keefe was last seen. Supporters of Karen's suggest that John may have been injured or killed inside that

• 1:25:22Annie Elise?

  house, specifically in the basement, whether by Higgins, by Colin, by whomever it was. But they suggest he was killed inside that house and not by her SUV. And the theory started gaining a lot more traction when it was revealed that the basement floors at this home were reportedly redone. And not just, you know, your run of the mill, oh, we're going to renovate the basement, we're going to refinish the floors, but these floors had already been redone three years prior. So why would they then need to redo them right after John's death unless they were trying to hide something? So once again, some argue that this could indicate an attempt to either clean up, conceal evidence, or cover it up. Once again, further fueling suspicions of a cover up and

• 1:26:07Annie Elise?

  reinforcing claims that Karen is wrongfully accused. Now regardless of how this trial plays out, it is already one that has made history. And I have no doubt that this case is going to be a case that people remember for years to come. I personally am extremely eager to see how this all plays out. I really don't know what direction it's going to go. I have a feeling of what direction I would like it to go, but I really don't have a strong feeling of where it's actually going to land. Now, I know I've said this a million times, but everybody is divided. But I want to just remind you about all of the inconsistencies because while you, it may seem clear cut to some that either Karen was being framed, that she's innocent, that she's guilty, wherever it is you sit with this.

• 1:26:50Annie Elise?

  There was a lot of things that were mishandled and a lot of things that are questionable. And let me just run through a shortlist, okay? The solo cups that were used to collect evidence, the stop and shop bags that were used to transport evidence, not securing the crime scene, not going inside the house and looking around or talking to anybody. A snowplow driver who never saw John's body that morning when they drove by and plowed the snow. Multiple partygoers who left after Karen left and also did not see John. The missing carpet or like the floor that was redone in the basement. The missing dog that's been rehomed that it looks like there were dog bites on his arm. The home itself in question being sold soon after.

• 1:27:35Annie Elise?

  The Google searches from Jen McCabe at 2:27 in the morning, how long to die in the cold? The claims of all of the taillight damage, which it looked like it was from backing into John's car rather than maybe happening on the scene. I mean, a lot of different weird stuff with the taillight, them finding pieces too. After they already blew the snow and looked for pieces and found clear cocktail glass, but didn't see red taillight. Proctor, the lead investigator, the state investigator being removed and fired and like the, all of his messages that came out and.

• 1:28:08Annie Elise?

  Just horrific behavior himself, the Sally Port footage that was inverted and kind of was insinuated that it was done sneakily. So I mean, there is so, so much in this case. I mean, that I just rattled off probably 12 different things. And so when you have that much reasonable doubt, or that many coincidences, or poor investigation, how do you not step back and ask yourself like, can we really convict this person without a reasonable doubt? I don't know. As I said, we are live streaming every single day of this trial over on my YouTube channel, 10 to life. We have a live chat feed going during the whole trial as well.

• 1:28:50Annie Elise?

  So if you want to watch this trial in real time and chat with us about everything that's going on, all the testimonies, all the witnesses, hop on over to YouTube, we'll be there. We also have our correspondent, Boots on the Ground in Boston, who is going to be reporting on this every single week with us, telling us what it's like in the courtroom, what's going on. And we're going to see, is Karen going to be found guilty of murder? Or will she be found innocent? And where do you sit with this case? What do you believe? And I guess there's three buckets, right? Probably more if you really break it out, but there's bucket one, where you believe that Karen was wasted, she hit him, it was intentional or accidental, who knows?

• 1:29:33Annie Elise?

  But she hit him, doesn't remember it, and she should be held accountable. There's bucket two of she's being framed, this is a conspiracy, he was murdered inside that house, she had nothing to do with it, and they're pinning it on her. And there's bucket three, that says, you know what? I think she's guilty. I think that all the evidence points to her accidentally being wasted and hitting him with her car. However, there is enough inconsistency and enough cover up to make me question if I can say that with 100% certainty. There's reasonable doubt. And for that, I'm out. Where do you sit? Which bucket do you fall in? Let me know in the comment section, on the Spotify comment section, on the review section on Apple, and we will watch.

• 1:30:18Annie Elise?

  Watch this all unfold together. As mentioned, I have covered this case for years now. So if you want to revert back to any of those episodes, you can definitely search them. I will also link them in the show notes. But let's see what happens with Karen Reed. Thank you, guys, for tuning into another episode with me. This is going to be a trial we are all glued to, and let's see what happens. All right, guys, until the next one, be nice. Don't kill people. Don't Google search at 2:00 in the morning. Don't butt dial people back and forth. Don't be a disgusting human and text people foul, offensive things, and just be a good person. Okay? All right, guys, take care. Bye.

• 1:31:39Speaker 00

  Time for a quick break to talk about McDonald's. Start your morning with the $6.00 McGriddles Extra Value Meal, featuring your choice of a Sausage Egg and Cheese McGriddles or Bacon Egg and Cheese McGriddles, plus crispy hash browns and a small premium roast coffee. Sweet, savory, crispy, and caffeinated, it's everything your morning ordered, all for just $6.00. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing at participating McDonald's.

• 1:32:03Speaker 01

  Hi, it's me, Your Gutters. Everything is totally fine. There's just a lot of debris up here, and I've been managing it mostly on my own. I just thought you could find someone on Angie to clean me up. I could really use it.

• 1:32:14Speaker 02

  Your gutters have waited long enough. Find a pro at Angie.com.