S3 Ep261: John O'Keefe: Conflicts and Butt Dials (Part 5)

In the early morning hours of Saturday, January 29th, 2022, Boston Police officer John O’Keefe was found dead in a snowbank outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. According to the medical examiner, O’Keefe had died from blunt force trauma and hypothermia. At first it seemed like a tragic accident, maybe a slip on the ice, a fall that ended in death. But as investigators dug deeper, things became far more complicated and Karen Read, O’Keefe’s girlfriend, became the center of the investigation. Evidence that there had been trouble in paradise in the romantic relationship began to surface, but so did other disturbing possibilities. What seemed like a domestic tragedy was quickly clouded by allegations of police corruption and cover-up, and an investigation that many believe was compromised from the start. What if the very people tasked with upholding the law were covering up the truth? Was John O’Keefe’s death a result of an angry lovers rage- or the collateral damage of a police force protecting its own? In this case, the line between justice and corruption becomes confusingly blurred. Evidence disappears, witnesses are silenced, and as the truth slowly rises to the surface, it may reveal a web of lies that’s more dangerous than anyone could have predicted. Was Karen Read the scapegoat in a larger cover-up? And what role did corruption within the police department play in distorting facts. This may not be just a story of love gone wrong, it may in fact turn out to be a story of power, deceit, and the price people will pay to keep the darkest of dark secrets buried. Join us as we delve deep into the case of John O’Keefe and Karen Read, and help us see if we can get closer to the truth. Try our coffee!! - www. CriminalCoffeeCo.comBecome a Patreon member -- > ｿ https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeeklyShop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> ｿ https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shopYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcastWebsite: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.comInstagram: @CrimeWeeklyPodTwitter: @CrimeWeeklyPodFacebook: @CrimeWeeklyPodADS: 1. SKIMS.com - Shop the SKIMS Holiday Shop! Select our podcast after checkout to let them know we sent you!2. EatIQBAR.com - Text WEEKLY to 64000 for 20% off all IQBAR products and FREE shipping!3. HelixSleep.com/CrimeWeekly - Get 20% off all mattresses and two FREE pillows!4. SundaysForDogs.com/CrimeWeekly - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY to get 40% off your first order!

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

• 0:12Stephanie Harlowe?

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

• 0:16Derrick Levasseur?

  And I'm Derrick Levasseur.

• 0:17Stephanie Harlowe?

  So today, we're diving into Part 5 of the John O'Keefe series. And I know that we do want to address something really quickly because, you know, we guys love you. We love how enthusiastic you get about these cases. I learn so much from the comment section. I mean, especially with a case like John O'Keefe and Karen Reed. It is very twisted, very complicated. It's one of those spider web cases that you can go in a million different directions and miss a million things, and I'm aware of that. So I love when you guys, you know, put little details in the comments. We do want to just address something. We have a lot of comments saying, you know, Karen Reed wasn't found not guilty. It was a mistrial.

• 0:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  No, we know, and we did address this in the first episode of the series because Karen Reed was arrested and she was hit with three separate charges. And then in the aftermath of the trial ending and a mistrial being declared, her defense team in documents and in court tried to get two of the charges dismissed for the new trial because during the first trial, the jury had found Karen not guilty on two of those charges, one being murder in the second degree, which was the most serious charge, and they were hung on the third charge, which was the manslaughter charge.

• 1:39Stephanie Harlowe?

  So that's why we keep saying, oh, Karen Reed, the jury found her not guilty of murder because technically during the trial, after sitting through...

• 1:52Stephanie Harlowe?

  This very painfully long and, and, and, you know, drawn out trial. The jury after all of that was not stuck on these two charges. They were stuck on the manslaughter charge, but not on the second degree murder charge. They found her not guilty. That is what, that's why we keep saying, oh, she was found not guilty by the jury in the first trial, because technically she was.

• 2:16Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, and because of that technicality, she can be retried on all charges.

• 2:21Stephanie Harlowe?

  Because they dismissed all the charges, yeah.

• 2:24Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, which is what they're trying to do. So that's the answer to the question.

• 2:28Stephanie Harlowe?

  How do you feel about that, by the way?

• 2:30Derrick Levasseur?

  I don't know. I, I don't think they should be able to charge her on everything. If you're asking my opinion, if, if the, I think they should be compartmentalized and individual, but that's just not how the judicial system works. So for me to say that, they would have to change the entire structure of our legal process.

• 2:45Stephanie Harlowe?

  It could technically work that way. If the prosecution was like, yeah, we see from the first-

• 2:49Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, the defense is trying to get them dismissed.

• 2:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Because the prosecution, like, we always talk about Casey Anthony, right? And how the prosecution in her case lost because they went for that first degree intentional murder and they just didn't have enough to convince the jury of that. So if the prosecution was smart, in my opinion, they would look at this and say, hey, we were not able to convince this first jury of second degree murder. What are our chances of being able to convince a second jury of second degree murder? Maybe we should just go with that manslaughter charge, which the first jury was hung on, or which the first jury, you know, couldn't make up their minds about, like, they couldn't agree on this. Maybe that is our best bet. Instead of shooting for the stars here.

• 3:32Derrick Levasseur?

  I would agree. I think they're probably looking at it as this first trial was a practice round now. And this case, and we'll, we'll talk about it again when we wrap this case up, but to me, this, this whole case is a battle of the experts. And what will happen is now prosecution will see the defense's experts in this case, and they're going to try to combat that with their own experts. They're going to say the exact opposite of what their experts are saying. And I'm assuming, behind closed doors, the prosecution's saying, oh, we still believe we can, we can get, we can get her on those charges now with better experts. So, and it was something I said to you off, off record, and I guess because I'm saying it now, we can say it a little bit and talk about it more as we go on, but-

• 4:17Derrick Levasseur?

  A lot of these cases, when there's no clear inculpatory or exculpatory evidence, and I know it's hard for people to say here, but there's, there's no exculpatory evidence here for Karen Reed. I understand there's a lot of evidence that suggests she's not guilty of any crime. I'm with you. But nobody's gonna sit there in the comments or anywhere else and tell me that there's something that completely rules her out. And a lot of, like, for example, one of the things people will say is that the Arca guy said the injuries to John O'Keefe's body could have been caused by a vehicle. That's their interpretation, and they came off very, very believable. But that doesn't mean because that's their interpretation that it's, that it's right. Now, if there was a video that showed Karen Reed at Meadows,

• 5:02Derrick Levasseur?

  and she's already home for the night, and John O'Keefe walking around at Fairview, well, that would be exculpatory, right? He was still alive clearly after she left, so...

• 5:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  You know how, how we could have gotten that? Is if the police had asked the neighbors for their Ring doorbell cameras in the days after the investigation, which they didn't do.

• 5:20Derrick Levasseur?

  This case is, uh, this case is a lot bigger than Karen Reed and John O'Keefe. Uh, it represents a lot more for a lot of people, and that being, there are people who can take away our freedom, and yet, they have proven to be unprofessional, immoral, and unethical. And to think that those individuals can come in and build a case against someone and end up putting them in prison for the rest of their life, it's scary. And this isn't the first case, or the first situation where someone, maybe someone you know, has been wronged by police. So I understand the passion behind it, and it's, and it's warranted. Let me just say that right now. I understand this case has a lot of significance and a lot of, uh,

• 6:05Derrick Levasseur?

  meaning for a lot, a lot of different people, and for different reasons. Just to wrap this up, the one final thing that was brought to my attention afterward, and it's not even 100% clear, although I think it's leaning this way. We were going back and forth about John O'Keefe and whether or not he was wearing an Apple Watch. It looks like he wasn't, and it looks like the Apple Health data came from his phone, but I don't feel a- Hundred percent confident saying, no, no doubt, it's been proven he didn't have a watch. Although that's what I'm seeing online. I didn't find anything definitive to say, no, no Apple Watch, just the iPhone, but that's, that's a direction I'm leaning. So for those of you who have that question.

• 6:43Stephanie Harlowe?

  I had seen a couple of articles where it said he had an Apple Watch. So that's why, once again, and I told Derek, I was like, ah, he's like, I'm gonna say he didn't have an Apple Watch on. I'm like, you know, this is the part of the reason why it drove me crazy with this case because you'll see different things in different publications, but you can never get really a straight answer unless you sit through every single second of ADA Lally's testimony, like examination. And, and I'm telling you, man, I don't, I don't hate myself enough to do that again. So.

• 7:14Derrick Levasseur?

  He's rough. He's rough. I just wanted to put it out there for people being like, he doesn't even have an Apple Watch on. You're probably right. I, I don't think he did. If I was a betting man, I don't think he had an Apple Watch. And if he did have an Apple Watch, this case would be a lot stronger for, you know, certain areas of it because an Apple Watch is more accurate than the, the phone being in your pocket or on the ground. So, and it creates a lot of opportunity for the phone to be separated from John O'Keefe, which I think is good for the camp of, you know, free Karen Reed. That's, that's going to play to you extremely well. So I just wanted to point it out there for the sake of transparency. I'm not trying to paint a picture of anything by supporting it with evidence or information that I know to be false. As I learn something new, if I find out that it's not correct, I'll be the first to tell you.

• 8:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  And I did screenshot a couple of comments because there are a few parts in even today's episode where I was like, I don't understand what's going on. And there were some comments that had preemptively, who thank you, it's like you knew what we were going to cover today, had, had given their stance on it from what they got from the trial. So I'm going to read those when I'm in a place where I'm like, I don't know what's going on. But, um, one comment did say something about the key cycles that you had talked about at the end of the last episode.

• 8:29Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes, this is a huge point of contention.

• 8:31Stephanie Harlowe?

  So this person, Matthew Decker, 606.

• 8:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  He says, I know Derek says the timing matches up if we're looking at key cycle 1162, but the defense's whole point is that it's the wrong key cycle in the first place. So the SUV wasn't even being driven by Karen during key cycle 1162. She likely would have been in front of 34 Fairview during key cycle 1159, and the tech stream data says nothing weird happened during that key cycle. It could only be key cycle 1162 if the tech just wasn't recording multiple key cycles that happened in between Karen being in front of 34 Fairview and Trooper Paul having possession of the SUV. Also, we know that the tow truck driver was spinning out in the snow when backing the SUV out of the parents driveway, and that presumably would have been recorded on the tech stream for being weird.

• 9:22Stephanie Harlowe?

  And this is actually would have likely been key cycle 1162. So this could have been when the maneuver happened. If you spin out the tires, you could technically be going zero miles per hour and traveling zero feet, but the tech could record it as 60 feet at 24 miles per hour because it's only based on how fast the back tires are spinning. If we believe the tech stream timing is right, then he, or Proctor himself, would have had to have made this maneuver about 19 minutes after first putting the key in the ignition while the SUV is in Karen's parents driveway. Could the SUV have been sitting in the driveway for 19 minutes? Sure. Or the SUV was driven somewhere else and then made this maneuver. It could have even made the maneuver at the police station for some reason. Keep in mind that there was a ton of snow by that afternoon, so it could have been spinning out in multiple places.

• 10:07Stephanie Harlowe?

  Though I also still think it's possible that maybe Trooper Paul doesn't remember exactly when he had control of the SUV, and he easily could have had it during key cycle 1162, and he could have been trying to recreate the maneuvers that he thinks Karen would have made. We have no reason to trust him when he says that he got control of the SUV during key cycle 1164.

• 10:25Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, and that's always what it's going to go to. And I'm not saying it's wrong. Whenever there's any evidence that implicates Karen Reed, it's always going to be who's the source of it. It's gonna, they're gonna try to go after how that was obtained. And just to counter what you're saying, I have one here as well. Uh, the text stream data while undated shows two events on its key cycle, cycle 1162. One being a three-point turn, one being the reversal event theorized to be when John was struck. The three-point turn is about 11 minutes into the key cycle and the reversal event is about 19 minutes into the key cycle. If we use a start time of 1213, everything fits perfectly. 11 minutes later would be 1224, three-point turn. And 19 minutes later would be the 1232 reversal event.

• 11:09Derrick Levasseur?

  And we know that the start time fits as John and Karen are last seen on security footage, walking away from the waterfall at 1211. Toward where they were parked somewhere around CF McCarthy's. Even a minor deviation here would mean the data doesn't fit, but all of those things do. So depending on who you want to believe, that's where you're gonna fall and I respect your opinion. Um, when I looked at it, it did seem to make sense based on the other key data, but I'm not a psycho key expert and that, that's just, we could go back and forth all day and that's the whole point here is again, as you said, could have, could have, could have, we can't trust anything Proctor said. And you're right in feeling that way.

• 11:49Derrick Levasseur?

  We started this series by talking about some disrespectful and disgusting text messages that were sent by him. And he's the, he's the guy overseeing this whole case. So right there, you're, you're screwed. Right there, you're, you're already starting it off on the wrong foot. And he should have been taken off the case if they would have known about that. He would, he would have been gone if I was his supervisor. So everything that we have that potentially points to Karen Reed, potentially maybe even accidentally striking him. It's going to be asked, how did you get it? The taillight, the embedding, the embedding of the taillight on John, the DNA on the taillight. What does it all come back to? The person who obtained it. And I'll, and I'll say this, I don't have, I don't have pushback on Proctor. So that's you, you're justified.

• 12:34Derrick Levasseur?

  What do you want me to say? What do you want me to say? That's it. Could it still be accurate even though Proctor obtained it? Sure, of course it could. I don't think anybody would dispute that. Uh, maybe he did something right in the case. But yeah, to your point, and I think it's a good point to make.

• 12:50Derrick Levasseur?

  Depending on what you believe, you can go through not only our comments, but you can go online and find something that will support that narrative. And that's why this case is so polarizing.

• 13:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, I agree. So that being said, let's continue it.

• 13:05Derrick Levasseur?

  Let's continue it. Yay.

• 13:06Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right. So in Canton, Massachusetts, the Albert family was well known and held in high regard. And because of their positions in law enforcement and politics, they obviously knew and were connected to a lot of people. So this leads us to a conversation about connections and conflicts that have haunted this case since day one. In their opening statements, Karen Reed's defense team made sure the jury understood that she was an outsider. She wasn't from Canton. She'd been living there with John to help him care for his niece and nephew, but she wasn't like of Canton. She didn't live there full time. And once John O'Keefe was gone, Canton, along with the McCaves and the Alberts had no use or care for Karen. And so she became the convenient fall person for this crime.

• 13:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Whether or not this is true, it cannot be disputed that the McCaves and the Alberts had close ties with many people who were responsible for investigating the truth about John O'Keefe's death. So we're going to start small. We've got Lieutenant Michael Lang of the Canton Police Department, who was one of the first law enforcement officers at the scene of John's death. Now remember, he's the one who thought it was a really great idea to collect blood samples in red solo cups and then not mark any of them and et cetera, et cetera. So during the trial, Lang admitted to knowing all of the Albert brothers for most of his life since childhood. On cross-examination, Lang was questioned about a 2002 incident where Chris Albert was accosted by a group of men outside a bar and Lang intervened.

• 14:35Speaker 02

  Certainly with regard to Chris, you would consider him a close friend.

• 14:40Speaker 03

  Consider who a close friend?

• 14:41Speaker 02

  Chris.

• 14:43Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 14:43Speaker 02

  I'm using first names only because they're all named Albert.

• 14:45Speaker 03

  Sure, sure. Chris and I were pretty good friends when we were younger, yes.

• 14:51Speaker 02

  I want to draw your attention to an incident in August of 2002. Do you remember an incident in 2002 occurring with, that involved Chris Albert?

• 15:01Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 15:04Speaker 02

  In 2002, in August of 2002 specifically, you were off duty, correct?

• 15:12Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 15:13Speaker 02

  You had been drinking alcohol, correct?

• 15:15Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 15:15Speaker 02

  You were approached by Chris Albert out in a parking lot, is that right?

• 15:20Speaker 03

  That's correct.

• 15:21Speaker 02

  And Chris Albert told you some information about being in a fight?

• 15:27Speaker 02

  That he had been in a fight or an altercation of some sort, correct?

• 15:30Speaker 03

  He told me he had been in an altercation earlier in the night and some threats had been made to him and his family.

• 15:36Speaker 02

  And you got out of your car and discussed this with Mr. Albert, correct?

• 15:41Speaker 03

  No.

• 15:42Speaker 02

  You just talked to him while you were seated in your car?

• 15:44Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 15:45Speaker 02

  Okay, at some point, did some other individuals approach that same area?

• 15:49Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 15:50Speaker 02

  Was there a fight that you believed was about to ensue?

• 15:53Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 15:54Speaker 02

  Did you get out of your car at that point?

• 15:55Speaker 03

  I did.

• 15:56Speaker 02

  Did you come to Chris's aid by quote-unquote "activating yourself as an officer"?

• 16:02Speaker 03

  I got out of my car and I approached the group and I pleaded with them to not fight tonight. I said, "There's not going to be a fight tonight. There's six of you guys. He's here with his girlfriend. There's not going to be a fight tonight."

• 16:15Speaker 02

  Did you come to Chris Albert's aid as best you could as a longtime friend of his?

• 16:19Speaker 03

  I came to the aid of a citizen who was in fear and of need.

• 16:23Speaker 02

  That citizen happened to be Chris Albert, whom you had known since you were 12 years old?

• 16:28Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 16:30Speaker 02

  Ultimately, a fight did break out, did it not?

• 16:32Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 16:33Speaker 02

  And you engaged in that fight?

• 16:35Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 16:36Speaker 02

  And again, you had been drinking alcohol at that point, correct?

• 16:41Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 16:42Speaker 02

  And you were off duty on, in August of 2002 during this fight?

• 16:49Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 16:49Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I can, I can definitely understand the situation all too well. I grew up in a city called Central Falls, Rhode Island. 1.2 square miles, one of the most densely populated cities in the country. And then I eventually became a police officer there. And I ran into multiple occurrences where friends that I grew up with, I was either arresting or taking statements for because they were a victim of a crime. And so that's going to happen when you grow up in a town or a city where the people that you're now policing are the same people you hung out with as, as kids. Here's what I'll say, reading between the line on this one, which I don't think it takes a police officer with my background and my experiences to interpret this, but he was not protecting a citizen.

• 17:34Derrick Levasseur?

  He was protecting a friend, more than likely getting in a fight with his friend, Chris, for these other people. And maybe at one point throughout the, throughout the information that he was also a cop. So, but he was using it to his own advantage. He got into a fight as Chris's, you know, counterpart. They fought these six dudes. He was drunk, Chris was drunk, and in no way, shape or form was he acting in a police capacity. He's saying that now under oath because he knows what the defense is trying to show. And if I'm sitting back over here watching it for the first time, completely agree with the defense. How are you going to fairly and, and impartially investigate Chris and his possible involvement

• 18:17Derrick Levasseur?

  in a major crime when clearly you're willing to put your own safety at risk as a young kid for the same person? It's very, it's very difficult to remain impartial at that point.

• 18:27Stephanie Harlowe?

  Uh, yeah, I agree. Even though Link was off duty, right? So he's not acting as a police officer. He still made the decision to confront the group as a police officer, telling them, you know.

• 18:36Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, that's what he's saying now.

• 18:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, there's not going to be any fight that night. He ended up involved in a fistfight himself.

• 18:42Derrick Levasseur?

  That's what I'm saying. The tone in which he was relaying it, he was not acting as a police officer. If he wanted to do that, you pull out your badge, you let him know there's not going to be a fight. Even in that situation, as a, as a someone who's also intoxicated, the best thing he should, he could have done was walk away.

• 18:56Stephanie Harlowe?

  Or call, call the police.

• 18:58Derrick Levasseur?

  Call the police who are sober.

• 18:59Stephanie Harlowe?

  Which he eventually did, yeah, but.

• 19:01Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, but as far as what this is really about, because police officers all over the country have to encounter and deal with people that they grew up with. It's the nature of the beast. But him trying to say that he was, he was involving himself as an off-duty police officer, not because he was defending a friend who was outnumbered, is complete bullshit.

• 19:18Stephanie Harlowe?

  I agree. And, and like I said, I'm starting small. This isn't a huge deal. But one of the responding officers responsible for collecting biological evidence at the scene being childhood friends with the homeowner of the house where John O'Keefe was found dead outside of, probably not the most conducive situation for impartiality when you're thinking about an investigation and a trial. That's all. Okay. So moving on to Julie Albert. Remember Julie Albert's the wife of Chris Albert. And Julie Albert happened to be very, very close friends with Courtney Proctor. How do we know that name? Well, Courtney Proctor is the sister of lead investigator, Michael Proctor. So Julie's sister Jillian had been best friends with Courtney since they were kids. And Julie and Courtney were pretty tight.

• 20:00Speaker 04

  Now, in terms of the two investigators who did come, uh, you know, you knew one of them quite well, did you not?

• 20:09Speaker 05

  I knew them. I wouldn't say quite well, but I knew them.

• 20:12Speaker 04

  Okay. And when you say you knew them.

• 20:14Speaker 05

  Him. I'm sorry, him.

• 20:16Speaker 04

  Okay. And who was it that you knew?

• 20:19Speaker 05

  Michael Proctor.

• 20:21Speaker 04

  Uh, Michael Proctor was the brother of one of your close friends, correct?

• 20:26Speaker 05

  Correct.

• 20:27Speaker 04

  Uh, you're close friends with Courtney Proctor, correct?

• 20:30Speaker 05

  I am.

• 20:31Speaker 04

  And, uh, by the way, your maiden name is Daniels, correct?

• 20:36Speaker 05

  Yes, it is.

• 20:37Speaker 04

  And you have a sister Jill Daniels, correct?

• 20:40Speaker 05

  Yes, I do.

• 20:41Speaker 04

  And you would agree that, uh, Jill Daniels is also lifelong best friends with Courtney Proctor, correct?

• 20:47Speaker 05

  Yes, she is.

• 20:49Speaker 04

  And in terms of your relationship with Courtney Proctor, you socialize with her, do you not?

• 20:55Speaker 03

  Action.

• 20:57Speaker 06

  Do you?

• 20:58Speaker 05

  Um, occasionally, yes.

• 21:00Speaker 04

  Um, go out the drinks with her, correct?

• 21:03Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 21:03Speaker 04

  Um, you've attended parties with her, correct?

• 21:06Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 21:06Speaker 04

  Um, you've also provided childcare for her children, correct?

• 21:10Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 21:12Speaker 07

  Move to strike.

• 21:13Speaker 04

  Before January of 2022,

• 21:18Speaker 04

  did you provide childcare for Courtney Proctor's children?

• 21:22Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 21:23Speaker 04

  When?

• 21:23Speaker 05

  2019, 2019.

• 21:28Speaker 04

  Just that one year?

• 21:29Speaker 05

  Yeah, it was pre-COVID. And then when COVID happened and everything shut down, I wasn't helping her any longer. And then occasionally after, I would help just on a, on a need, as needed basis.

• 21:43Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 21:43Speaker 05

  After COVID.

• 21:44Speaker 04

  And, uh, during that year of 2019, how often did you watch her children?

• 21:52Speaker 05

  Two days a week.

• 21:53Speaker 04

  Proctor family entrusted you with the care of their children, correct?

• 21:57Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 21:58Speaker 06

  It's sustained as asked.

• 22:00Speaker 04

  You were also aware that Courtney Proctor had recommended you to also watch Michael Proctor and Elizabeth Proctor's children, correct?

• 22:09Speaker 07

  Objection, move to strike.

• 22:10Speaker 06

  That objection sustained.

• 22:12Speaker 04

  But you go back a long way with Courtney Proctor, correct?

• 22:15Speaker 05

  Correct.

• 22:16Speaker 04

  Um, in fact, you were certainly at her wedding, correct?

• 22:19Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 22:20Speaker 06

  S- sustained.

• 22:22Speaker 04

  Your son was a ring bearer at that wedding.

• 22:24Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 22:25Speaker 06

  All right, so we'll sustain that through this thing.

• 22:27Speaker 04

  You've spent time at Michael Proctor's childhood home, have you not?

• 22:32Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:33Speaker 04

  You've been to the pool at the Proctor's house, correct?

• 22:37Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:38Speaker 04

  How many times have you been to the Proctor's pool?

• 22:40Speaker 05

  Say maybe a dozen.

• 22:42Speaker 04

  And you've certainly taken your children there as well?

• 22:45Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:46Speaker 04

  Colin has been to the Proctor's pool?

• 22:50Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:51Speaker 04

  And you've seen Michael Proctor's mother and father at that pool, correct?

• 22:55Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:56Speaker 04

  Uh, you've seen Courtney Proctor and her husband at that pool, correct?

• 23:01Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 23:03Speaker 04

  Um, you are very close with Courtney Proctor, correct?

• 23:09Speaker 05

  I don't, how would you define very?

• 23:11Speaker 04

  Well, I guess I'd ask you to define very close. Do you deny that you were very close with Courtney Proctor?

• 23:17Speaker 05

  No.

• 23:17Speaker 07

  Objection, Your Honor.

• 23:18Speaker 06

  No, go ahead. Next question. You got your answer.

• 23:22Speaker 04

  I didn't hear the answer.

• 23:23Speaker 06

  Go ahead, repeat that.

• 23:24Speaker 04

  Do you deny that you were very close with Courtney Proctor?

• 23:28Speaker 05

  No.

• 23:28Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 23:29Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so basically you heard Julie Proctor say, "Yeah, I've known Courtney Proctor forever. Actually, I have babysat for her children on multiple occasions. I've been to her house. I've been to her house when Michael Proctor was there. I've been to the Proctor family home. We've all had parties together, et cetera, et cetera." Okay, now, I'm going to play you a clip where David Ginetti questions Julie about how often she talked to Courtney Proctor by phone. And she testified under oath that they spoke rarely. No, not rarely, very rarely. And Ginetti is going to confront Julie Albert with some documented evidence that proves

• 24:09Stephanie Harlowe?

  this was not true, at least after everything went down with Karen Reed and John O'Keefe. So maybe Julie and Courtney didn't speak by phone that much before, but after, well, they became quite tight.

• 24:25Speaker 04

  You talk regularly, correct?

• 24:29Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 24:29Speaker 04

  Text each other, correct?

• 24:31Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 24:31Speaker 04

  You also talk by phone?

• 24:34Speaker 05

  Very rarely.

• 24:36Speaker 04

  Is it fair to, did you say very rarely?

• 24:41Speaker 05

  Phone, usually it's text.

• 24:44Speaker 04

  But do you stand by that testimony that you talked to Courtney Proctor very rarely by phone?

• 24:52Speaker 06

  Do we have a timeframe? Do you mean now, or do you mean then?

• 24:58Speaker 04

  Let me ask you this. Between February 1 of 2022 and September 6 of 2022, did you only speak rarely with Courtney Proctor?

• 25:15Speaker 05

  I don't recall.

• 25:16Speaker 04

  Were you using Courtney Proctor as an intermediary to communicate with Michael Proctor about this case?

• 25:26Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 25:27Speaker 06

  I'll allow it.

• 25:29Speaker 05

  No, I was not.

• 25:32Speaker 04

  Are you aware that between February 1st of 2022 and September 6th of 2022, you and Courtney Proctor spoke by phone 67 times?

• 25:50Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 25:51Speaker 06

  Were you aware of that?

• 25:53Speaker 05

  No, I don't know the exact count.

• 25:55Speaker 04

  Do you deny that you spoke 67 times?

• 25:59Speaker 05

  I don't deny it, but I don't, I don't recall the exact amount of times.

• 26:04Speaker 04

  Okay, so you don't deny that you spoke 67 times. You still want to maintain your testimony that you only talked very rarely with Courtney Proctor during that time period.

• 26:17Speaker 05

  I just don't remember the exact amount of times.

• 26:21Speaker 04

  Well, you know that my client, Karen Reed, was arrested in connection with this case on February 1st of 2022, you're not?

• 26:30Speaker 05

  I do.

• 26:32Speaker 04

  You spoke to Courtney Proctor that date for 12 minutes by phone, correct?

• 26:41Speaker 05

  I don't recall exactly. I don't remember exactly.

• 26:45Speaker 04

  If you would take a look at that specific date and time and see if that refreshes your memory about whether and how long you spoke to Courtney Proctor on February 1st of 2022.

• 26:57Speaker 05

  Yes, I see it. I just, I don't, I don't recall this.

• 27:02Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 27:03Speaker 05

  It's a long time ago. Thank you.

• 27:04Speaker 04

  Did you speak to Courtney Proctor that day in any fashion?

• 27:08Speaker 05

  What day exactly?

• 27:09Speaker 04

  The day of my client's arrest on February 1st of 2022.

• 27:14Speaker 05

  That was on the sheet you just gave me?

• 27:16Speaker 04

  It was.

• 27:17Speaker 05

  Well, I did, obviously, if it was on that sheet.

• 27:20Speaker 04

  Okay. And when you talked to her, did she tell you that she had discussed the case with her brother?

• 27:26Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 27:28Speaker 04

  Were you notified that Karen was going to be arrested?

• 27:32Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 27:33Speaker 04

  What did you discuss?

• 27:35Speaker 05

  I don't recall.

• 27:37Speaker 04

  The next day, February 2 of 2022, was the day that my client was arraigned back in Stoughton District Court. Do you recall that?

• 27:49Speaker 05

  Yes, I do.

• 27:50Speaker 04

  You spoke to Courtney Proctor three times that day before my client's publicly televised arraignment at 9:00 a.m., did you not?

• 28:01Speaker 05

  Again, I don't remember.

• 28:03Speaker 04

  After the arraignment, you spoke to her again for 27 minutes, beginning at 10:58 a.m., did you not?

• 28:14Speaker 05

  I don't recall.

• 28:16Speaker 04

  My client's arrest was pretty big news in Massachusetts, wasn't it?

• 28:20Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 28:21Speaker 05

  Sustained.

• 28:22Speaker 04

  You were aware that my client had been arrested, correct?

• 28:26Speaker 05

  Yes, I had seen it on the news.

• 28:28Speaker 04

  You were aware that she was being arraigned the very next day, were you not?

• 28:34Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 28:35Speaker 04

  This case involved your family, did it not?

• 28:39Speaker 05

  How do you mean it?

• 28:40Speaker 04

  Well, you knew that John O'Keefe was found dead on your brother-in-law, Brian Albert's lawn, correct?

• 28:49Speaker 05

  Correct.

• 28:50Speaker 04

  So necessarily, your family was involved in this case, correct?

• 28:55Speaker 05

  Somewhat, yes.

• 28:56Speaker 04

  And you knew that ultimately, you'd probably be talked to by investigators from this case, correct?

• 29:02Speaker 05

  I assume so, yes.

• 29:04Speaker 04

  Didn't happen for 13 days, but ultimately, they did talk, correct?

• 29:08Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 29:09Speaker 04

  All right. So this case had to have been pretty big news within the Albert family, was it not?

• 29:16Speaker 05

  Yes, yes.

• 29:18Speaker 04

  You were discussing it with your husband, correct?

• 29:20Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 29:21Speaker 04

  You were discussing it with your other relatives, correct?

• 29:24Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 29:25Speaker 04

  You were discussing it with your friends, correct?

• 29:27Speaker 05

  I don't know about my friends, but...

• 29:30Speaker 04

  Okay. So is it your testimony that with all of this going on, you confined your discussions about this case just to your specific family members?

• 29:41Speaker 05

  Not necessarily.

• 29:43Speaker 04

  No. I mean, clearly, you would have talked to Courtney Proctor about it, correct?

• 29:48Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 29:49Speaker 05

  Sustained.

• 29:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so we just played that clip. We're gonna come back after the break and discuss it really quick.

• 30:01Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so just so everybody knows, obviously you hear the prosecution objecting consistently throughout this testimony and it really, it doesn't need to be happening. The questions are valid and Beverly Canone, the judge, she continues to sustain. So after this last objection was sustained and Yanetti was on a roll, Judge Beverly Canone ended court for that day, but the cross-examination would pick up the very next morning. And Yanetti would ask Julie if she remembered her testimony from the prior day and if she recalled how often she described speaking to Courtney Proctor.

• 30:36Speaker 04

  When I asked you how often you talked to Courtney Proctor, you could have chosen any word in the English language to answer that question, correct?

• 30:46Speaker 05

  Correct.

• 30:48Speaker 04

  What was the word that you chose?

• 30:53Speaker 05

  Not often? I don't remember, honestly.

• 30:57Speaker 04

  How about rarely?

• 30:58Speaker 05

  Rarely, yes.

• 30:59Speaker 04

  That was your word, correct?

• 31:01Speaker 05

  It could have been. I don't really recall. I was, I don't recall.

• 31:05Speaker 04

  You don't recall telling this jury yesterday that when I asked you about how often you spoke to Courtney Proctor by phone, you said, "Well, rarely."

• 31:16Speaker 05

  I don't remember.

• 31:18Speaker 04

  What is your definition of rarely?

• 31:22Speaker 05

  Not daily. I, not daily, not...

• 31:27Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 31:28Speaker 04

  Once in a blue moon?

• 31:30Speaker 05

  No.

• 31:31Speaker 04

  Rarely doesn't mean to you 67 phone conversations within a seven-month period, does it?

• 31:40Speaker 05

  A 67 time period in how many, eight months?

• 31:45Speaker 04

  In about seven months, 67 times.

• 31:49Speaker 05

  It's, it's not a lot. I wouldn't think it's a lot in seven months.

• 31:54Speaker 04

  Three times in one day? Is that rarely?

• 31:59Speaker 05

  No, but I'm not, that wasn't every day. I would have...

• 32:04Speaker 04

  Regarding all of those 67 phone calls from February 1st until September 6th, do you maintain that during none of those calls, or any portion of those calls, did you and Courtney Proctor discuss the investigation into the death of John O'Keefe?

• 32:27Speaker 05

  I do not remember.

• 32:29Speaker 04

  Do you deny discussing that investigation?

• 32:33Speaker 05

  I don't deny, but I do not remember.

• 32:34Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so in regards to the February 2nd calls in the morning, they took place before Karen Reed's arraignment, and Julie Albert claims she doesn't remember what they talked about. The 27-minute call with Courtney Proctor after the arraignment, Julie also doesn't remember if they discussed Karen or the case. And Julie Albert and Chris Albert would not be interviewed by any law enforcement official until February 10th, which is 13 days after John O'Keefe died.

• 33:02Speaker 04

  And you told Courtney Proctor that you were nervous to speak to her brother, Trooper Proctor, about this case. Do you remember that?

• 33:13Speaker 05

  I do not remember those exact words, no.

• 33:15Speaker 04

  All right. But you were nervous to speak to him, correct?

• 33:20Speaker 05

  Of course, I was nervous in general for a police interview. I mean, I don't know someone who wouldn't be.

• 33:27Speaker 04

  Were you worried that one of Trooper Proctor's colleagues might ask to speak to your son, Colin, about what had happened on the 28th and the 29th?

• 33:36Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 33:37Speaker 05

  Was I nervous they would ask my son?

• 33:39Speaker 04

  Yeah, were you nervous that one of the investigators in this case might approach your son to ask him about his whereabouts?

• 33:46Speaker 05

  No.

• 33:46Speaker 04

  Who was present for that interview?

• 33:49Speaker 05

  Me, my husband, Trooper Proctor, and Trooper Bukaki. Bukaki.

• 33:56Speaker 04

  Michael Proctor agreed to interview you and your husband together, correct?

• 34:03Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 34:06Speaker 04

  You and your husband were interviewed together, correct?

• 34:09Speaker 05

  Correct.

• 34:11Speaker 04

  Did either of these troopers, including Michael Proctor, suggest that maybe the two of you should be separately interviewed?

• 34:19Speaker 05

  I don't recall. I don't remember.

• 34:21Speaker 04

  At 6:17 PM, that same night,

• 34:27Speaker 04

  shortly after you had been interviewed, you called Michael Proctor's personal cellphone number, correct?

• 34:35Speaker 05

  I don't remember.

• 34:37Speaker 04

  Did that refresh your memory about those two phone calls on February 10?

• 34:42Speaker 05

  I mean, I just read them, but I don't remember.

• 34:45Speaker 04

  Do you recall that Trooper Proctor called you back that same day at 6:21 PM and that you spoke for about four minutes?

• 34:54Speaker 07

  Question, Your Honor.

• 34:55Speaker 05

  Aye.

• 34:57Speaker 04

  Do you deny speaking to Trooper Proctor for four minutes when he called you from his personal cellphone on February 10 of 2022 after you had been interviewed that day?

• 35:12Speaker 05

  No, I don't deny it, but I don't remember it.

• 35:16Speaker 04

  When did you get his personal cellphone number?

• 35:20Speaker 05

  I don't remember.

• 35:22Speaker 04

  Years ago?

• 35:25Speaker 05

  I'm sure, yes.

• 35:27Speaker 04

  Because you've known that family for a long time.

• 35:29Speaker 05

  Yes, I have.

• 35:31Speaker 04

  And as you testify here today, you can't remember what that phone call would have been about, correct?

• 35:39Speaker 05

  No, I do not remember.

• 35:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, so basically, what we have here is Julie Albert doesn't remember shit. She doesn't remember what she talked about with Courtney Proctor on the day that Karen Reed was arrested. She doesn't remember what she talked with Courtney Proctor about on the day that Karen Reed was arraigned, and she talked to her more than once that day. She doesn't remember what she talked about with Michael Proctor, when she called his personal cellphone number the day that he interviewed her and her husband at their home. And she has his personal cellphone number, right? So that's another thing. She's not calling his work phone. She's calling his personal cellphone, which, remember, until the FBI got involved, Michael Proctor never thought that any of his personal communications were ever going to be a part of this case, which

• 36:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  is why he took part in a group chat with people where he said horrendous things that he would never have wanted anybody to lay eyes on. Julie Albert doesn't even remember what she testified to the prior day at court when she said she spoke to Courtney Proctor very rarely. She couldn't remember. And this, I think... And I think you'll agree with me, it's just a tactic for her to keep saying she doesn't remember anything because there's not a chance she did not talk to Courtney Proctor about the case, right? She would babysit Courtney Proctor's kids, they would do family functions together and things like that, but mostly their communications before that time had been via text. Now they've got all these phone calls happening around Karen Reed's arrest, her arraignment,

• 37:10Stephanie Harlowe?

  the investigation, her being interviewed by Michael Proctor, who's Courtney's brother. Now they're talking on the phone a lot, definitely discussing the Karen Reed case. And what the defense here is saying is you were getting inside information about the investigation, where it was going, what was happening, what Trooper Proctor was finding out during the investigation through Courtney Proctor as a proxy, right? And Julie's gonna say, no, absolutely not. But how do you know absolutely not? Because you don't even remember what you all talked about.

• 37:37Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, that's why, that's why sometimes just telling the truth is the easiest route. And what she should have done here, because everybody was talking about the Karen Reed case, is she should have just been transparent and said, yeah, of course, like everybody else, we were talking about it, plus we had people that we knew directly who were involved in it, we were, everybody was talking about the case. And then the inference can be made by the defense that she was getting inside information. The truth is, they can never prove that. But by lying about it and saying you don't remember anything, it does create the, at least the optics that you're hiding something. So by her saying, I don't recall and I don't remember, it just makes her look guilty of something. And that's not good, especially if that's not what happened.

• 38:18Derrick Levasseur?

  But perspective is everything, and her just having a case of amnesia about anything regarding any type of phone call that could look shady, makes her look shady.

• 38:28Stephanie Harlowe?

  Looks shady, yeah.

• 38:29Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, so that's it. And what happened on that phone call, who knows? There's a world where they were just saying like, oh, did you hear what happened today? Whatever. Doesn't matter, though. You don't remember anything.

• 38:39Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, but if that was the case, you know she would remember, and she could say, absolutely, we did not discuss any inside investigation information. But the fact that she will not say that.

• 38:48Derrick Levasseur?

  That's the problem.

• 38:49Stephanie Harlowe?

  Means that you're dead.

• 38:50Derrick Levasseur?

  Listen, I'm not gonna sit here and say that they discussed inside information. There's no proof of that. But by her lying about it and saying that she doesn't remember anything, it makes her look guilty of something.

• 39:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 39:01Derrick Levasseur?

  And that's what I'm trying to convey. I don't know what's on the phone call. The defense doesn't know what's on the phone call. Nobody knows except those two parties. But what I am saying is by going up there and just, I do not recalling everything. It makes you look like you're hiding something. That's anybody who watches that video is going to think the same thing. So regardless of what was said, the optics is that you were doing something you shouldn't be doing. And now you can't, now you've buried yourself. You can't, you can't dig yourself out.

• 39:30Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, we're obviously going to get to Michael Proctor, who at this point is the elephant in the room. But first, let's talk about Judge Beverly Canone and her conflict of interest in this case. That has to do with Julie Albert's husband and Brian Albert's brother, Chris Albert. So on July 2nd, 1994, a 22-year-old Chris Albert was involved in a hit-and-run accident. And at that time, he was living in Canton with his parents and working at Saki's Pizza in Cumberland, Rhode Island. It was 3 a.m. on a Saturday. Chris was driving his white Chevy Lumina and switching lanes when he rear-ended a Chevy Blazer. The Blazer careened onto a stone ledge along the highway and the driver, 24-year-old Peter Massaro's burger, died at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence later that day.

• 40:14Stephanie Harlowe?

  He and his passenger, 24-year-old Peggy Lau, who suffered minor injuries, were both honor students in Johnson and Wales University's International Business MBA Program in Providence. They were both set to graduate at the end of the summer. So not only did Chris Albert flee the scene of the crime, but he did not call the police. However, his lawyer, John Prescott, called the Foxborough State Police Barracks at 10:30 p.m. Saturday night, so several, several hours later. And he told them he was bringing his client in the following morning to surrender, and the two arrived to the barracks at 9:30 a.m. the following morning. So at that point, Chris Albert did not want to make a statement about the incident, but did direct law enforcement to the location where he had left his Chevy Lumina. After the interview, he was arrested by virtue of the John Doe warrant,

• 40:59Stephanie Harlowe?

  and he was booked pending bail. Now, according to the police report and the transcript of his police interview, Chris Albert was never asked about his alcohol consumption at the time of the collision, and he turned himself in 30 hours later, which is obviously more than enough time for any alcohol to have left his system. But what we know about these people, okay, what we know about these people. I think unequivocally is they ain't got no problem drinking and driving. Okay?

• 41:25Derrick Levasseur?

  That we agree on.

• 41:27Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yes. So, uh, his lawyer, Chris Albert's lawyer, John Prescott, not only worked for a private law firm at the time that was known for representing clients who had money, but Prescott was also the brother of Judge Beverly Canone. John Prescott would be instrumental in getting Chris Albert off with a slap on the wrist. He received a suspended sentence of two years in jail with six months to serve a year later after negotiating a plea deal. So he kills somebody, leaves the scene, turns himself in 30 hours later, is not questioned about alcohol consumption, and then he gets off with a slap on the wrist.

• 42:00Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, happens a lot in this country, and it's not right. Nepotism, favoritism, you know, knowing certain people in certain communities, some, there's preferential treatment. I got no rebuttal. Happens all over the country. Doesn't make it right.

• 42:13Stephanie Harlowe?

  So to discuss the next possible conflict associated with Judge Canone, we first have to talk about Aiden Kearney, better known as Turtle Boy. So Kearney is a Massachusetts blogger who runs the website TB Daily News, and he's been covering the John O'Keefe case since before it became a national spectacle. Kearney has used his platform to raise awareness about what he believes is a miscarriage of justice, and in doing so, he has aligned himself with Karen Reed and her defense team. His coverage has attracted attention to the case, though it has also been controversial as his blog is known for its aggressive tone and willingness to confront those he perceives as wrongdoers. Now, Aiden's involvement in the Karen Reed case is part of his broader pattern

• 42:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  of taking on high-profile legal cases and presenting them through his distinctive, if not combative, lens. Aiden Kearney has also recorded himself publicly confronting witnesses such as Jen McCabe at her daughter's lacrosse game. In October of 2023, Kearney was arrested and charged with witness intimidation, and the same day he was arrested, he was arraigned in the Stoughton District Court. Prosecutors gave several alleged examples of witness intimidation in court, many of which appeared previously on Kearney's blog or social media channels, and he was accused of accused of working with an Avon Police dispatcher to illegally access motor vehicle data. The judge ordered that Kearney be held on a $1,000 cash bail with conditions.

• 43:39Stephanie Harlowe?

  Specifically, he was ordered to stay away from all witnesses listed by the prosecution. Aiden Kearney pleaded not guilty to all charges and his attorney, Timothy Bradl, announced that he vehemently denied these charges. After his arraignment, Kearney held a press conference saying he would not be silenced and that his right to freedom of speech was being compromised.

• 44:00Speaker 07

  Aiden, what effect does this prosecution have on freedom of the press?

• 44:05Speaker 03

  This should scare everyone. Like we said, we've pulled up hundreds. You could find probably thousands of videos of reporters aggressively pursuing and asking questions of people that make them uncomfortable. Those people did not, those reporters were not charged with witness intimidation as a result of that. So this has an extreme chilling effect on free speech and free press in this country. And perhaps some journalists are okay with it because I'm uncouth or I say words that make some people feel uncomfortable. But today it's me, tomorrow it's them, so they should probably be a lot more concerned about it.

• 44:42Stephanie Harlowe?

  Aiden Kearney stated, quote, "They will never shut me up. They will never, ever stop me from reporting the truth about what happened to John O'Keefe. Reporting the news is not harassment. Asking questions is not harassment." End quote. In December, a Norfolk County grand jury indicted Aiden Kearney on 16 new charges, including eight counts of witness intimidation, three counts of conspiracy to intimidate witnesses, and five counts of picketing a witness. Special prosecutor Kenneth Mallow claimed that Kearney was continuing to violate the conditions of his bail, stating, quote, "It is clear that Mr. Kearney is encouraging his minions, his followers, in the context of his blogs and YouTubes, et cetera, to continue to harass witnesses." End quote.

• 45:22Stephanie Harlowe?

  Additionally, according to an unsealed affidavit, Aiden Kearney and Karen Reed had 189 phone calls totaling in excess of 40 hours in 2023. Prosecutors also claim that the two communicated using the Signal app and through an intermediary. The state contends that Karen was sharing information About the case not yet public with Kearney. So Aiden Kearney has obviously gotten into it with many individuals involved in this case, and that includes a man named Sean McCabe, who is Matt McCabe's brother and Jen McCabe's brother-in-law. According to Aiden Kearney, Sean McCabe had been making Facebook posts, speaking disparagingly about Karen Reed, referring to her as a psycho bitch, and making insulting jokes about Aiden

• 46:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  Kearney's investigation into the case and his support for Karen. Aiden Kearney sent a private message to Sean McCabe in May of 2023, and Sean responded, quote, "If you want to talk to me, you're going to need a map, face to face. You drew bullseye targets around the faces of my very young teenage nieces and posted that horseshit all over your pathetically ridiculous social media accounts. You've been slinging shit out of your cum hole nonstop for weeks now. So if you want to talk to me, you're going to hear what I have to say first. Cut and paste this shit all you want, Sally, but you don't have the stones to look me in the eye. So let me sweeten the deal for you. Bring six friends with you. That is, if you can find any. Maybe those douchebag lawyers will buy you some." End quote.

• 46:45Stephanie Harlowe?

  So this back and forth continued for a while, with insults and veiled threats of violence and some slurs and some, you know, kind of horrible things being said. But while the exchange was happening, Sean posted on Aiden Kearney's Facebook page, and it said, quote, "I just called in an order asking Judge Bev to institute a trial by combat order against you. They'll be coming to bring you to me any minute now. TikTok baby fucker." End quote. Kearney sent this screenshot to Sean in a private message, and he asked, quote, "Do you really have a line to Judge Canone?" And Sean's response was surprising, to say the least. He said, quote, "Anti Bev? Whose seaside cottage do you think we're going to bury your corpse under?" End quote.

• 47:28Speaker 02

  Sean McCabe made a claim to a reporter in public, claiming to have a personal relationship with this court.

• 47:35Speaker 02

  And he tried to prove it by citing to the fact that Sean McCabe knows personal information about the judge, which is extremely troubling. About a beach home, not just the fact that the court may own one, but exactly where it is. His words were, after receiving, Sean McCabe's words were, after receiving a question from the reporter, "Do you really have a line to Judge Canone?" His answer was, "On his bed." I mean, no disrespect, I'm quoting, "On his bed, whose seaside cottage you think you're going to bury your corpse under?" Extremely troublesome dialogue, but it's not just the threat that's inherent in the dialogue, that's on one level.

• 48:18Speaker 02

  It's the fact that this person claimed to know that this court may own a beachside cottage somewhere. Your Honor, I will say, I've appeared before hundreds, at this point, I'm getting old, I may have appeared before thousands of judges in my nearly 30-year career, I've never, ever known where a single one of them has ever lived, or property they may or may not have owned. But Sean McCabe appears to know, and he appears to intimate that he knows the details of this court's personal life.

• 48:51Stephanie Harlowe?

  So, as it turns out, Judge Canone does own a house in Barnstable, Massachusetts. I guess it's on the water, and the defense asked her to recuse herself. She left the courtroom for 15 minutes to review the request, and then returned, saying the request was not credible, and she would not be stepping down from the trial. She claimed, quote, "I can tell both parties, I don't know Sean McCabe. As far as I know, I've never spoken to him, or had any contact with him, I've never interacted with him, and certainly, I've never socialized with him, or any family members, or any witnesses, who have been said here in court," end quote. So, does Judge Canone have a relationship with Sean McCabe? Probably not. It's probably easy, if you know all the same people, you can find out where she's

• 49:35Stephanie Harlowe?

  got a cottage, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine.

• 49:38Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, they obviously knew she had a cottage down there.

• 49:41Stephanie Harlowe?

  So, do you think, because I would feel the more... Our main conflict of interest is that her brother represented Chris Albert in this hidden run. Do you think that's a conflict of interest? And considering that there's a lot of judges in this area that could have taken this case, maybe they could have found somebody who did not have this specific conflict of interest.

• 50:00Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, it'd be better. It'd be ideal. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not a judge. I don't know if she should step down because of it. I'm in Rhode Island. Everybody knows everyone and a lot of family members of families are all attorneys and they represent people on the defense, represent people in prosecution and some of them become judges. And it's almost like, uh, what is that, like Kevin Bacon effect where like, you know?

• 50:22Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 50:23Derrick Levasseur?

  You can find-

• 50:23Stephanie Harlowe?

  Separation.

• 50:24Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, whatever it is. So, I don't know. I think, I think she had the legal right to stay on, but to make things easier. I just don't know why you wouldn't just say, all right, I'll step back. I don't want this headache anyways. For me personally. Still getting paid, you know?

• 50:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  So let me ask you another question. Going forward to the new trial, Judge Kanone has insisted that she's going to be overseeing that one as well. Do you not think that, given all of this and given that she's been considered to be biased towards the prosecution with her sustaining every frickin objection they have, maybe for this one, she should step back, right?

• 50:56Derrick Levasseur?

  My little pushback is any, anytime the trial's not going one way for the prosecution or the defense, they're gonna accuse the judge of not being fair to them. That's just like life, right?

• 51:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, this was a pre-trial thing, I have, asking her to accuse herself.

• 51:08Derrick Levasseur?

  Right. That was a pre-trial thing, but what I'm saying is, they're gonna say that. So that doesn't hold weight with me, but to answer your question more directly, like the, the, the defense saying, oh, they're, you know, she's biased towards the prosecution. I hear that all the time, but what I would say with this other information, why not just step back? Why not just step back and let someone else take it?

• 51:27Stephanie Harlowe?

  To make it easy for yourself. You're probably getting a shitload of harassment right now.

• 51:30Derrick Levasseur?

  I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the courts, but like I just said, you're getting paid either way. Why not just remove yourself from it?

• 51:36Stephanie Harlowe?

  I thought it was funny when Alan Jackson was like Auntie Bev, he's like, I mean, no disrespect, I'm just reading it.

• 51:41Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, and I mean, and as far as that exchange, it's all just, you know.

• 51:44Stephanie Harlowe?

  Oh, yeah. What do you think about that Jen McCabe's brother-in-law threatening to bury Aiden Kearney under, under a beach house? So obviously, this is a threat of violence, but what Aiden Kearney and his supporters are saying is like, listen, this is how these families handle conflicts with violence.

• 52:01Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I mean, listen, I get it. I mean, it's, listen, it's a tough thing, especially when kids are involved. I didn't pick up on all of it, but I think you said that they, they, they might have been going to kids' games or whatever, or whatever.

• 52:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  Oh, yeah, you get tensions are high.

• 52:13Derrick Levasseur?

  It's gonna be bad and it's, it's all ugly. It's all bad. I, I don't condone any of it. It's just, uh, it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that everyone, people even residually are affected by it. And it sounds like when I was reading that text message on the screen, it's Auntie Bev. He, this guy saying he knows this woman because he knows she has a cottage when in reality, probably never met with her in his life. But it's a lot of just, it's a pissing match, you know, and it's unfortunate.

• 52:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  So I am gonna be honest with you. I don't think there's a relationship between Sean McCabe and Beverly Canone.

• 52:45Derrick Levasseur?

  No, no, yeah, I don't either. I don't think he would acknowledge it if there was, you know?

• 52:48Stephanie Harlowe?

  Is there a chance that they have met or maybe run in the same circles?

• 52:52Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah.

• 52:52Stephanie Harlowe?

  But are they like tight and Sean McCabe is handing, hanging out at Auntie Bev's seaside cottage? No, I don't believe that. No.

• 52:59Derrick Levasseur?

  If I had a dollar every time, especially here, where someone said to me, oh, I met your cousin the other day. And they said their name and I'm like, I have no clue who that is.

• 53:07Stephanie Harlowe?

  Oh, yeah. Wait, you have no clue who the, your cousin is or who the?

• 53:10Derrick Levasseur?

  No, yeah, no clue. Like they'll say, I met your cousin and I'm like, I have no clue who that person is.

• 53:14Stephanie Harlowe?

  But that's not your cousin?

• 53:15Derrick Levasseur?

  No, it's not my cousin.

• 53:16Stephanie Harlowe?

  Oh.

• 53:17Derrick Levasseur?

  Like when I, when you win a little bit of money, everyone's a family member, you know? I, one big brother and I, my, my, my family tree got expanded exponentially. But yeah, no, I, I.

• 53:26Stephanie Harlowe?

  Got lots of cousins now.

• 53:27Derrick Levasseur?

  No, yeah, exactly. Sean is threatening, uh, Aiden here and he's trying to make it seem like he, he has more pull than he really does.

• 53:34Stephanie Harlowe?

  I agree, yeah.

• 53:35Derrick Levasseur?

  And, and then, you know, by doing that, the fence is gonna use it. And they made a big, nice little, uh, you know, board to look at there and, and, and looking at this and seeing how smart Alan Jackson and, and Yannette are, I think they probably already did their research and figured out that there was no connection there, but that doesn't matter. It's, you know, you're gonna put on the show.

• 53:54Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 53:55Derrick Levasseur?

  And you're gonna show that. You know, these types of things, the family are capable of these types of things and it only and the jury's sitting there eating it all up.

• 54:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  And I will say like anytime you see anti Bev in the comments, this is where it comes from. And from from now on, Hansforth forever into perpetuity, Beverly Canone will be known as anti Bev.

• 54:13Derrick Levasseur?

  By the way, there's so many things I see. I, you know, I get tagged in Twitter stuff and it's like all these different nicknames and I can't follow any of it. And I think,

• 54:23Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, you'd have to be deep into this, this, this universe, the multiverse, the Karen Reed and John O'Keefe multiverse. You have to be deep into to understand what all the

• 54:31Derrick Levasseur?

  I saw something the other day where they were referring to someone. They're like, oh, Derek has to wait till he gets to the crash daddies. I'm like, what the is the crash daddies? I think, I think I've, I think I've deduced that it's Arca. And I'm here to tell you guys, I will not ever be referring to them as crash.

• 54:49Stephanie Harlowe?

  Crash daddies? I never heard that, but that's funny.

• 54:52Derrick Levasseur?

  But there's definitely some people who are, to say the least, very connected to this case. I think that's the, the nice way of putting it.

• 55:01Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, let's take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to talk about the elephant in the room himself, Trooper Michael Proctor.

• 55:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  So all right, we're back. So on January 29th, 2022. So this is the same day that John O'Keefe is found dead on the front yard of Brian Albert's home. So this is 10:52 PM. It's that evening. Proctor began communicating via group text messages with eight of his friends from high school about the case. And in this thread, he was texting under the name Chip. They kind of all use nicknames, which you'll hear Alan Jackson and Yannetti refer to.

• 55:41Speaker 02

  You also informed these same folks, these same high school buddies that quote, "All the powers that be want answers ASAP, correct?"

• 55:50Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes.

• 55:50Speaker 02

  You knew Trooper Proctor that there was brass. That wanted this case wrapped up quickly and efficiently, isn't that right?

• 55:58Speaker 03

  No, the people wanted answers, sir.

• 56:01Speaker 02

  They wanted, they didn't just want answers, they wanted answers ASAP. What does ASAP mean?

• 56:06Speaker 03

  That's as soon as possible.

• 56:07Speaker 02

  Right. And you were, you were texting this to your high school friends, again, 16 hours into this investigation, right?

• 56:14Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 56:15Speaker 02

  And you knew at that time, you knew at that time, Trooper Proctor, that this was not going to implicate in any way, shape, form, or fashion another cop, correct?

• 56:25Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 56:26Speaker 02

  In this text exchange at 10:56 PM, your buddy Berg writes, "I'm sure the owners of the house will receive some shit," correct?

• 56:35Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 56:35Speaker 02

  How did you take that to mean? Did you, did you take that to mean that he could get in trouble?

• 56:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what my, my friend was getting at.

• 56:44Speaker 02

  Well, you had some idea.

• 56:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, I maybe.

• 56:47Speaker 02

  That the owners of the house isn't gonna get any shit for this, right?

• 56:49Speaker 03

  That's how I interpreted it.

• 56:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, you interpreted it like he's not gonna get in any trouble, he's not gonna be a suspect, correct?

• 56:55Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 56:56Speaker 02

  And he's not gonna be implicated in any way, is that right?

• 56:58Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 56:59Speaker 02

  And your answer was one word, correct?

• 57:03Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 57:04Speaker 02

  What was that word?

• 57:05Speaker 03

  Nope.

• 57:06Speaker 02

  And then you followed that up with an explanation as to why you said no, didn't you?

• 57:12Speaker 03

  That wasn't the explanation why I said nope. I simply said, homeowner's a Boston cop too, meaning Mr. O'Keefe was a Boston cop, the homeowner was a Boston cop as well. No, that's just saying he's a Boston cop as well, Mr. O'Keefe is a Boston cop.

• 57:25Speaker 02

  And that's why he's not going to get any shit, correct, Trooper Proctor?

• 57:29Speaker 03

  Well, he's not gonna receive any shit, sir, because he had, Mr. Albert, the homeowner, had nothing to do with Mr. O'Keefe's death.

• 57:35Speaker 02

  And you knew this 16 hours into your investigation?

• 57:39Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 57:40Speaker 02

  Last in a day?

• 57:40Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 57:41Speaker 02

  To your satisfaction?

• 57:42Speaker 03

  To my satisfaction and to the members of my unit.

• 57:45Speaker 06

  So let him, let him finish, we didn't get the, finish your answer?

• 57:49Speaker 03

  To my satisfaction and to all the members of my unit who investigated the, that day.

• 57:53Speaker 02

  Objection. Call some speculation. And again, this is before 11 o'clock at night on January 29th, 2022, some 16 hours into your investigation, is that right?

• 58:04Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 58:07Speaker 02

  So before you ever went to the crime scene, before you ever went into the house, only having interviewed three folks, you had this case nice and wrapped up, didn't you?

• 58:19Speaker 03

  Yes, based on the evidence.

• 58:23Speaker 03

  My office uncovered that day, the one shoe discovered at the scene, the one shoe at the hospital, Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, the broken taillight pieces underneath the snow.

• 58:34Speaker 02

  Super Proctor, I didn't ask for an explanation, I asked, did you in your mind have this case wrapped up? Was it cut and dry in your mind?

• 58:41Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 58:42Stephanie Harlowe?

  The defense brings up the fact that during his texting exchange, Proctor had no issues using the name of the victim, John O'Keefe, or telling his friends the name of the suspect, Karen Reed, but he never once mentioned the name Brian Albert. One of the members of the chat wrote that he assumed since it involved cops, they were going to make it pretty cut and dry. And one of Proctor's friends said, "Something didn't seem right," or more accurately, he said, "Something stinks." And Proctor responded by saying, "Yeah, but there will be some serious charges brought on the girl." And then for some reason, even though they were discussing a very serious subject, you know, the death of a person, a Boston police officer, the folks in the chat began discussing Karen's physical appearance.

• 59:23Speaker 02

  In 5051, changes gears, and he writes, "She hot at least?" Correct?

• 59:33Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 59:35Speaker 02

  And what was your response to that?

• 59:40Speaker 03

  From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack-job cunt.

• 59:46Speaker 02

  From all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong. She's a whack-job cunt. That's what you wrote, correct?

• 59:54Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 59:55Speaker 02

  16 hours into this investigation?

• 59:57Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 59:58Speaker 02

  Into your objective and unbiased, thorough investigation, correct?

• 1:00:04Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:00:05Speaker 02

  And from all accounts, he didn't do a thing wrong, that was your decision 16 hours into the investigation, correct?

• 1:00:12Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:00:13Speaker 02

  And the other decision that you made, and the other determination you came to, was my client, Karen Reed, was a whack-job cunt. Right?

• 1:00:23Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:00:24Speaker 02

  What else did you say in response to, "She's hot at least?" "Are she hot at least?" Question mark.

• 1:00:31Speaker 03

  So following that text, I responded, "Yeah, she's a babe. Weird Fall River accent, though. No abs."

• 1:00:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, she's a babe. Who's the she?

• 1:00:44Speaker 03

  Miss Reed.

• 1:00:46Speaker 02

  Weird Fall River accent, though. You're talking about her, the way she talks?

• 1:00:51Speaker 03

  The accent.

• 1:00:54Speaker 02

  And no ass. Now you're talking about her body, her physique, correct?

• 1:01:00Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:01:00Speaker 02

  You think that's appropriate?

• 1:01:02Speaker 03

  Absolutely not.

• 1:01:03Speaker 02

  Then Bird chimes in with a little comedy, "Ah, not newsworthy then, correct?"

• 1:01:10Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:01:11Speaker 02

  In other words, "Well, she doesn't have an ass. Nothing to see here, correct?"

• 1:01:17Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 1:01:18Speaker 02

  And then 5051 says, "Oh, she's skating," right?

• 1:01:24Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:01:27Speaker 02

  And what did you write after that?

• 1:01:30Speaker 03

  My response was, "Zero chance she skated."

• 1:01:34Speaker 02

  And then what did you write?

• 1:01:36Speaker 03

  She's fucked.

• 1:01:37Speaker 02

  Zero chance she skates. She's fucked, right?

• 1:01:43Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:01:44Speaker 02

  You decided on the 29th of January, 17 hours into this investigation, you decided, individually, Trooper Proctor, you're not only gonna put it on the girl, you decided you're gonna make sure this is cut and dried, and the way you're gonna do it is to make sure that she's fucked. That's what you were saying.

• 1:02:02Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 1:02:03Speaker 02

  And then Bird decides to chime in, "Good, no-ass bitch," right?

• 1:02:09Speaker 03

  Yes, that's what he wrote.

• 1:02:11Speaker 02

  And what did you, how did you respond to Bird saying, "Good, no-ass bitch"?

• 1:02:18Speaker 03

  I laughed.

• 1:02:20Speaker 02

  Thought that was funny, did you, Trooper Proctor? Thought that was funny?

• 1:02:26Speaker 03

  It was unprofessional of me. That's something I shouldn't have done.

• 1:02:29Speaker 02

  Well, I think we all know it was unprofessional. It was a lot of things. I'm asking you, did you think it was funny?

• 1:02:34Speaker 03

  According to my response at the time, apparently.

• 1:02:38Speaker 02

  The date is now February 2nd, 2022. A person by the name of Doc writes, "Is that chick a smoke?" Correct?

• 1:02:47Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:02:48Speaker 02

  Who's the chick?

• 1:02:50Speaker 03

  Miss Reed.

• 1:02:52Speaker 02

  And you write eh, E H, right?

• 1:02:56Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:02:57Speaker 02

  And then you write nutbag, as Chief would say, correct?

• 1:03:01Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:03:01Speaker 02

  Who's Chief?

• 1:03:03Speaker 03

  A friend of mine.

• 1:03:04Speaker 02

  And then you write what?

• 1:03:07Speaker 03

  She's got a leaky balloon knot.

• 1:03:10Speaker 02

  Trooper Proctor, explain to the jurors what a balloon knot is.

• 1:03:16Speaker 03

  You're essentially, I guess, your rectum area.

• 1:03:21Speaker 02

  Your anus?

• 1:03:22Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:03:24Speaker 02

  That's what you were referring to about Ms. Reed?

• 1:03:27Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:03:28Speaker 02

  And you're making fun of her because you believed at that time that it leaked? That's how you were treating Ms. Reed?

• 1:03:37Speaker 02

  Yes or no?

• 1:03:38Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:03:39Speaker 02

  You followed that up with the phrase leaks poo, didn't you?

• 1:03:42Speaker 03

  I did.

• 1:03:43Speaker 02

  Again, another reference to Ms. Reed's medical issues and medical conditions, correct?

• 1:03:49Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:03:50Speaker 02

  Specifically focused on her anus, correct?

• 1:03:54Speaker 03

  In reference, yes.

• 1:03:55Speaker 02

  At this point, Trooper Proctor, Ms. Reed was just reduced to a punchline to you, wasn't she?

• 1:04:02Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:04:02Speaker 02

  Sustained.

• 1:04:05Speaker 02

  Well, you weren't done yet. This chat doesn't end yet, does it? On the same day, February 2nd, 2022, about 4:15 PM, a person by the name of Whitey wrote, "What are you guzzling on?", correct?

• 1:04:18Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:04:19Speaker 02

  And you wrote nothing, writing a warrant. Is that right?

• 1:04:24Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:04:25Speaker 02

  Why did he then share some sort of a video, correct?

• 1:04:29Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:04:30Speaker 02

  You remember that video being of the 1980s band Warrant?

• 1:04:33Speaker 03

  I don't recall the video he sent.

• 1:04:36Speaker 02

  0095 laughed and then wrote, "Wait,

• 1:04:42Speaker 02

  why does her asshole leak?", correct?

• 1:04:46Speaker 03

  Yes, that's what he wrote.

• 1:04:48Speaker 02

  And then what did Doc write in response to that?

• 1:04:51Speaker 03

  Action, Your Honor.

• 1:04:52Speaker 06

  The objection sustained. I'll see it sidebar. Take that down, please.

• 1:04:56Speaker 02

  Trooper Proctor, without getting to the specifics of the words used in the following, in the next exchange that you're looking at, it's fair to say that your high school buddies then continued to discuss Ms. Reed's medical issues, correct?

• 1:05:12Speaker 03

  Action.

• 1:05:12Speaker 06

  That's sustained. Come on, Mr. Jackson. That isn't what you said you'd ask. Go ahead and ask the question you said you'd ask.

• 1:05:19Speaker 02

  Was there a continued discussion that finished on this subject matter?

• 1:05:24Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:05:26Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, so there was more. Trooper Proctor also ended up discussing that he hoped Karen Reed would die, that she would take her own life. And obviously, you know, he's asked by Ellen Jackson, "Do you have animosity towards her? And why is this being asked? It's because you're investigating this person for a crime. If you hate this person so much, if you're talking about her so disparagingly in this way, if you're seeing in this text chat that you never thought anyone would see, you hope she dies." You obviously hate this person, right? And Trooper Proctor was like, "Well, I don't, I didn't hate her, but obviously,

• 1:06:10Stephanie Harlowe?

  like, I had followed the evidence and I believed she was the one who had killed John O'Keefe. So, yeah, I had some emotions about it, you know." So, what do you think about, what do you make of all this?

• 1:06:22Derrick Levasseur?

  The number one thing for the lead investigator in any case is to be unbiased, impartial, and objective. And this, and you started off with these text messages in episode one, which I alluded to earlier, can't do that. You can't do that. You're seeing in black and white right here that he's not objective, he's not impartial, he's not unbiased. He has a strong opinion about Karen Reed, and there may have been some things that indicated something, maybe she was involved in initially. But he decided very early on, this is what happened. Now I just got to find the pieces that fit that puzzle. And it clouded his judgment, it created tunnel vision for him and his unit, and they didn't thoroughly investigate this case for no other reason than to just rule out other possibilities, even if they felt the way they did.

• 1:07:07Derrick Levasseur?

  Go out there and, and make sure that you, you explore all avenues so that you don't find yourself in a situation like we are now where questions are being asked about what you didn't do. Um, and as far as Proctor's concerned and his, his professionalism or lack thereof, I should say. I've said it before on other episodes. I don't think in this series. Uh, I'm not a police officer anymore. I haven't been one since 2017, but I do respect law enforcement. I know there are a lot of good men and women that serve this country every day. They put their lives online. Um, but there's a lot of trooper Proctors out there. There were trooper Proctors in my own department. Now, what do I mean by that? Cause I really gotta be specific because

• 1:07:49Derrick Levasseur?

  some people believe trooper Proctor framed Karen Reed and planted all this evidence. I am sitting here, regardless of what you believe, I'm sitting here telling you that I never witnessed an officer plant any evidence or frame anybody while working with me. You can choose to believe that or not, but anybody who knows me knows my character, knows I would not let that go down. But that's beside the point. That's just me saying what I'm saying. What I say when I know trooper Proctors and they've been on jobs with me is that sometimes through attrition and through nepotism and favor favoritism, people are promoted into positions that they have no business being in. When you look at some of the top homicide investigators in the country that I've had the privilege of working with, not in my own department, they are just cut from a different cloth. They

• 1:08:34Derrick Levasseur?

  are by the book. They don't associate with many other people. They're not discussing cases. They're not discussing victims. They're not discussing, uh, suspects. They're not discussing persons of interest. They're very gonna quickly shut down any conversation that could come back to jeopardize them or the case. That's not trooper Proctor. And I don't know trooper Proctor as a person, but I've seen a lot of people like him and I can tell you, I had people in my own department that I wouldn't let investigate the death of my dog. And there's some of them are gonna hear that. Some of them are gonna hear this episode and this is not the first time I've said this. There was, there was guys on my job. We called cold case because they couldn't solve the case if their life depended on it. And, and that's just the truth. And that was one of the biggest

• 1:09:15Derrick Levasseur?

  frustrations I had with being a police officer. I'm just gonna put it bluntly. I was better than most of them, but because of Certain relationships and who they were drinking with on the weekend and who was the lieutenant and the sergeant, they were getting the, the good cases and they were getting to do the, the, the, the more advanced stuff when an investigation came up. One quick example, I had multiple certification, advanced certifications in interviews and interrogations. I went all over the country for it. There was me and one other guy who had these certifications. But when a big case would come in because the lieutenant didn't like me, he would put his drinking buddy in the room and his drinking buddy could barely speak. Um, but he's the one who got the

• 1:09:57Stephanie Harlowe?

  Wait, cause he was drunk or stupid?

• 1:09:59Derrick Levasseur?

  A little bit of both. Not drunk on the job, but they were drinking after hours. They were friends.

• 1:10:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, fries your brain, yeah.

• 1:10:04Derrick Levasseur?

  So when the big homicide case came in and they had a suspect, instead of sending me or the, you know, the other guy who was trained in this specific action, you know, the, the, this guy would get the, the quote unquote shine. So I see it all the time and when I hear Proctor talk and I look at him, he just reminds me of those guys. Again, I don't know him personally, but this text exchange, as juvenile as it sounds, when you read it, it set the tone for this entire trial. And I, and that's a big, major reason why Proctor, amongst other things, uh, is on administrative leave right now. And more than likely he's gonna lose his job because this in and of itself, with nothing else, shows that he's not qualified to be in that position.

• 1:10:48Stephanie Harlowe?

  I, I agree. And, and like we're saying, this is, he's saying these things the evening of. So according to him,

• 1:10:54Derrick Levasseur?

  He already had it wrapped up.

• 1:10:55Stephanie Harlowe?

  He's already figured out what happened, even though he, he didn't go to the scene, he didn't talk to anybody, but he already knows what happened and he's developed this negative opinion of her. So for him to later say like, oh yeah, like I, I'd followed the evidence and that's why I was so emotional about it. You couldn't have followed the evidence by 10 o'clock that night. It's ridiculous, right?

• 1:11:12Derrick Levasseur?

  Part of following the evidence is also following the non-evidence, following things that could potentially lead somewhere, but more than likely won't. It's daunting, it's painstaking, it, you have to go through it. But to do a proper thorough investigation, you have to look into every possible scenario, regardless of how unlikely it may be. He saw what he saw, he came to his conclusion. And as I said last episode, it was a matter of him finding the additional evidence to support the conclusion that he had already came up with 16 hours into it. Probably that would the text messages happened 16 hours later. Doesn't mean that he came to that conclusion 16 hours later. It was probably much sooner.

• 1:11:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, he didn't just get in the group text and be like, suddenly I know how I feel about this case. And remember, we would not see these text messages had the FBI not get involved to investigate the investigators.

• 1:11:59Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I mean, listen, it's it's terrible. It's terrible. There's no other way around it. And I can see why people are so pissed off about this case specifically. But again, in general, because you have individuals who have a badge and a gun, who are part of the mass state police, which, you know, by most accounts is a respected agency amongst the country.

• 1:12:20Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, it was.

• 1:12:21Derrick Levasseur?

  Not so much in Massachusetts from the responses in the DMs that I've been getting. But overall, they were, you know, I I've worked with a lot of them and, you know, the good guys, but it's something where you see this guy on the stand and you realize that he's the one that's responsible for arresting people for murder? This is the guy who's talking like this? As unprofessional as he's being, this is the guy who can take away someone's freedom?

• 1:12:47Stephanie Harlowe?

  Makes you super uncomfy. Yeah.

• 1:12:49Derrick Levasseur?

  That's coming as a citizen myself.

• 1:12:52Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, you don't like to see it. That's for sure.

• 1:12:54Derrick Levasseur?

  You don't like to see it. And now we can extrapolate this out. We won't do it here. But what does this all mean? Does this just mean that Proctor was tainted and his judgment was skewed? And he just didn't explore other avenues, which may have led nowhere, but he didn't do it. And he just was a bad detective? Or is this the start of something much bigger? Where he was so disgusted and so angry with Karen Reed, that he would do whatever he had to do to make sure these charges stick, including planting evidence? That's the spectrum. That's the question that people have. Some have already come to their conclusions, and some have not. But that's where we're at. When you have a foundation like this with these text messages, all possibilities are on the table.

• 1:13:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  Absolutely. So the defense then questioned Michael Proctor about his conflicts of interest in the case, which Proctor had denied the existence of, right? Proctor had testified under oath on February 1, 2024, I believe during the grand jury, that he did not know any members of the Albert family or the McCabe family.

• 1:14:01Speaker 02

  "Did you communicate with First Assistant DA Beeland that you did not know and had no relationship with the Albert and McCabe families?" And you answered, "I, to the best of my recollection, the same conversation took place with everyone I talked to about this, because it's the same answer. It's the facts that I shared with everyone." Question: Meaning, you told First Assistant Beeland that you didn't know, didn't have a relationship with?

• 1:14:30Speaker 03

  Objection, Your Honor.

• 1:14:30Speaker 02

  Members of the Albert and McCabe families? Answer: Correct.

• 1:14:34Speaker 03

  Yes, that's correct.

• 1:14:35Speaker 06

  So your question is whether he said this?

• 1:14:37Speaker 02

  Correct. Whether that's his testimony? Do you recall that?

• 1:14:41Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:14:42Speaker 02

  And that's your testimony that you, in fact, told members of the Dials office that you did not know and did not have a relationship with the Alberts or McCabe's? Is that right?

• 1:14:52Speaker 03

  I did not know the McCabe's. I don't know most of the Alberts, and I have little to no relationship with Chris and Julie. So that's what I meant by that answer.

• 1:15:02Speaker 02

  Well, the question wasn't, "Did you know most of the Alberts?" The question was, "Did you have a relationship with, or did you know the Alberts?" And your answer was, "No."

• 1:15:10Speaker 03

  No, I don't have a relationship with the Alberts.

• 1:15:12Speaker 02

  Or know them?

• 1:15:14Speaker 03

  I don't know the McCabe's. I don't have a relationship with the Alberts.

• 1:15:18Speaker 02

  So you do know the Alberts, correct?

• 1:15:22Speaker 03

  I know some of them, Julie and Chris.

• 1:15:25Speaker 02

  And you, and Colin, correct?

• 1:15:26Speaker 03

  Correct, and Colin.

• 1:15:27Speaker 02

  And you knew the Alberts when you gave this testimony in February of 2024? Is that right?

• 1:15:33Speaker 03

  Yeah, they asked if there was any relationships.

• 1:15:36Speaker 02

  And... Let's try this again. Meaning, you told First Assistant Beeland that you didn't know, didn't have relationships with members of the Alberts and McCabe, sorry, members of the Albert and McCabe families? Answer: Correct. Was that ambiguous in your mind?

• 1:15:57Speaker 03

  The way I interpreted relationships was basically being like friends, or, um... you know, communications, frequent communications. That's how I interpreted relationships.

• 1:16:08Speaker 02

  Well, that might have been a good time to pipe up and say, "Well, I know Chris, and I know Julie, and I know Colin." Correct?

• 1:16:14Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:16:15Speaker 06

  Sustained.

• 1:16:16Speaker 02

  That might have been a good time to answer the question, "I know these three individuals, the, uh, from the Albert family." Right?

• 1:16:23Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:16:23Speaker 06

  Sustained.

• 1:16:25Speaker 02

  But your answer was, one word, correct. Right?

• 1:16:28Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:16:30Speaker 02

  You further testified that you never have gone to any supervisor at Massachusetts State Police to disclose even a potential conflict of interest in this case that you might have, correct?

• 1:16:41Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:16:42Speaker 02

  And you indicated the needs never come up. Is that right?

• 1:16:47Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:16:48Speaker 02

  You also told ADA Lally that you quote "did not have relationships with," I'm sorry, "did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families," correct?

• 1:17:01Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:17:02Speaker 02

  And that's just not true, is it? You did know, you do know, members of the Albert family. Isn't that right?

• 1:17:09Speaker 03

  It's different from having a relationship with people.

• 1:17:12Speaker 02

  But what about part of the question? "Did not have relationships or know members of the Albert or McCabe families." How about that part of the question?

• 1:17:24Speaker 03

  Well, that's lumped in with the McCabe's. I don't know the McCabe family, sir.

• 1:17:27Speaker 02

  I see. So what you did, Trooper Proctor, is you dissected the sentence, and where relationships are concerned, you ignored that in terms of the Alberts, because you don't have relationships. Where "no" is concerned, you linked that to the McCabe's, because you don't know the McCabe's. That's what you did?

• 1:17:43Speaker 03

  No.

• 1:17:44Speaker 06

  So it's sustained. You can ask it, you can break it down, Mr. Jackson.

• 1:17:47Speaker 02

  How about if I just ask it this way? That was a lie, Wesley.

• 1:17:50Speaker 03

  No, absolutely not.

• 1:17:51Speaker 02

  You stand by that testimony?

• 1:17:53Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:17:54Speaker 02

  That you don't know the McCabe, at the time that you testified, that you didn't know the Alberts or any members of the Albert family?

• 1:18:00Speaker 03

  That I don't have relationships with them.

• 1:18:02Speaker 02

  Right. My question is, you keep going back to relationships. I'm asking you, did you testify that you didn't know them?

• 1:18:07Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:18:08Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, we're back. We're going to talk about this, but before we do, let's take a quick break. So what do you make of that? What do you make of that exchange?

• 1:18:19Derrick Levasseur?

  Should've said he knew them.

• 1:18:20Stephanie Harlowe?

  Even on the, even on the stand, he's like, "You said you didn't know them and had no relationships," and he just ignores that first part, and he's like, "Well, I don't have relationships," right?

• 1:18:28Derrick Levasseur?

  I'm not saying, and I think even you'll agree with me here, which will be a change of pace for us in this episode series, I'm not saying it's right, but you and I both know what all of these witnesses are doing, whether it's on the prosecution or defense side. As you're sitting there in the box, I don't want to sue. Have you ever, have you ever testified for anything?

• 1:18:47Stephanie Harlowe?

  I have not.

• 1:18:48Derrick Levasseur?

  Okay. And this may be some of you out there who are familiar with this, but you know where the attorney has taken you. And so you're trying to get in front of that because whether you're telling the truth or not, they may try to paint you in a certain light. So you're automatically, human instinct, very defensive and you're trying to break down everything they're saying because you know that if it's the defense attorney talking to you, they're not asking you a question to help your case. So I'll be the first to admit that when I was up on a stand, I was trying to read between the lines and see where the defense attorney was going. So although I understand how it looks and I don't agree with the fact that Proctor didn't admit that he knew the Alberts, he should have.

• 1:19:31Derrick Levasseur?

  But what he's doing here is something you will find every single witness doing on both sides of the argument because they know that if they're being cross-examined, it's not good, right? So I'm not saying it's okay. I'm not saying it's something we should do. What I'm saying is it's not specific to Trooper Proctor. That's all I'm saying. But to make it really clear, he should have just said that he knew the Alberts when he was initially asked, which is the point that Jackson is trying to make. That's what he's trying to say here. And now, obviously Proctor realizes he put himself into a bind here and he's not going to say, yeah, I lied because he knows what that's going to lead to. I mean, he could be giggly, all his whole testimony could be thrown out where basically

• 1:20:16Derrick Levasseur?

  they show that he's lied under oath. And so he's not going to admit to that. I don't think anybody expects him to. So he's trying to soften the landing, although he knows as he's answering Jackson's questions, how bad it makes him look. He knows. He knows. So he should have just told the truth initially. They're playing chess right there. They're going back and forth.

• 1:20:35Stephanie Harlowe?

  But I mean, he did lie, right? So it was a lie.

• 1:20:38Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I think, I think that's fair.

• 1:20:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  As, as the defense went on to show Trooper.

• 1:20:42Derrick Levasseur?

  If he's having to dissect it that much.

• 1:20:44Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 1:20:45Derrick Levasseur?

  You're lying.

• 1:20:46Stephanie Harlowe?

  Trooper Proctor was asked if he had indicated that his sister Courtney was one of his best friends. He's like, yes, she is. She is my best friend. The defense pointed out how close Courtney and Julie Albert were and that Proctor was very aware that members of the Albert family had been over to his parents' house and Michael Proctor himself had been there on occasions when members of the Albert family, specifically Julie. Chris and Colin had been there. He pointed out that Julie Albert had Michael Proctor's personal cell number. Michael Proctor also had Julie Albert's number stored in his phone. In fact, 10 days before John O'Keefe's death, Michael Proctor had texted his sister about Julie Albert babysitting his own children. And less than a month after John O'Keefe's death, Michael Proctor and Julie Albert were texting each other.

• 1:21:27Speaker 03

  Based off the content of the message, yeah, I recognize this text message from Julie.

• 1:21:32Speaker 02

  And she texts, "This is the weekend I've been waiting for. Michael, please send ski videos if CP doesn't share with me," with a laughing face, correct?

• 1:21:42Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:21:43Speaker 02

  That text was sent on February 24th, 2022, wasn't it?

• 1:21:48Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:21:49Speaker 02

  That was less than a month after Mr. O'Keefe's death, isn't that right?

• 1:21:52Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:21:53Speaker 02

  And less than a month after you'd been assigned to the investigation in which Julie Albert was a witness, correct?

• 1:21:59Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:22:00Speaker 02

  And her husband, Chris Albert, was a witness, correct?

• 1:22:04Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:22:05Speaker 02

  And her son, you knew, Colin, was involved as well, correct?

• 1:22:09Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:22:13Speaker 02

  Who is CP in that text message?

• 1:22:16Speaker 03

  It's a nickname I have for my sister.

• 1:22:18Speaker 02

  Courtney Proctor, correct?

• 1:22:19Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:22:20Speaker 02

  You interviewed Julie and Chris Albert at about 5:30 PM on the 10th of February, isn't that right?

• 1:22:28Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:22:31Speaker 02

  Did either of them, Julie or Chris Albert, mention that their son Colin Albert had been at 34 Fairview Road on the night in question, January 29th?

• 1:22:43Speaker 03

  I'd have to reread the report to refresh my memory on their statements.

• 1:22:47Speaker 02

  Do you recall Trooper Proctor ever mentioning that whether or not Julie and Chris mentioned to you that their son had been at 34 Fairview on January 29th? Do you recall that as you sit here?

• 1:22:59Speaker 03

  To the best of my recollection, no.

• 1:23:02Speaker 02

  It was a very short interview with Julie and Chris, was it not?

• 1:23:05Speaker 03

  It was typical length for the information they had to offer.

• 1:23:09Speaker 02

  So you started the interview about 5:30 PM. It must have been relatively short because you received a phone call by 6:17 from Julie Albert herself, correct?

• 1:23:21Speaker 03

  I don't have the call detail right here in front of me, but, okay, yes.

• 1:23:25Speaker 02

  6:21, you called her back and you spoke for 3 minutes and 58 seconds, is that right?

• 1:23:30Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:23:31Speaker 02

  Did you discuss the interview?

• 1:23:34Speaker 03

  I don't recall the content to that conversation.

• 1:23:36Speaker 02

  And of course, you never memorialized that in any report, did you? The fact that you had a subsequent phone call with Julie Albert on your personal cellphone.

• 1:23:43Speaker 03

  I did not.

• 1:23:45Speaker 02

  Trooper Proctor, after your interview with Julie Albert, your sister Courtney texted you, "How did it go at Julie's? She was so nervous." You recall that?

• 1:23:55Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:23:57Speaker 02

  In fact, you responded to that with a "ha, ha, ha, ha, ha." Four "ha's," right? And then, "Why?" question mark, correct?

• 1:24:07Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:24:08Speaker 02

  Then you responded, "It was fine. Just a quick convo," correct?

• 1:24:12Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:24:13Speaker 02

  You're literally reporting back to your sister about the progress of your investigation in a homicide investigation, weren't you?

• 1:24:20Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:24:20Speaker 06

  Sustained. You can ask it differently.

• 1:24:22Speaker 02

  Were you reporting your progress to your sister about your investigation?

• 1:24:28Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:24:29Speaker 06

  Sustained.

• 1:24:30Speaker 02

  Your Honor, may we approach? May I?

• 1:24:32Speaker 06

  Yes.

• 1:24:32Speaker 02

  Thank you. Were you reporting your progress of your investigation back to your sister, Courtney Proctor?

• 1:24:38Speaker 03

  No, absolutely not.

• 1:24:40Speaker 02

  But you did say that the conversation of the formal interview went fine. It was just a quick convo, correct?

• 1:24:47Speaker 03

  In response to my sister indicating Julie was nervous, that's why I told her it was fine.

• 1:24:54Speaker 02

  Trooper Proctor, Julie and Chris Albert were not actually treated like witnesses in a murder investigation. They were treated more like friends, wouldn't you agree?

• 1:25:02Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:25:03Speaker 06

  Is that true?

• 1:25:03Speaker 03

  Absolutely not.

• 1:25:05Speaker 02

  We've established that you're very close with your sister Courtney, correct?

• 1:25:09Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:25:09Speaker 02

  You provided your sister with updates on important advancements during the course of your investigation into this case, did you not periodically?

• 1:25:17Speaker 03

  I made her aware of newsworthy stuff.

• 1:25:21Speaker 02

  That started as early as January 29, 2022. Isn't that right?

• 1:25:26Speaker 03

  Don't have the exact date or content.

• 1:25:29Speaker 02

  Well, the day of the incident, you began letting her know that you were involved, that you had been assigned, what the status was.

• 1:25:37Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:25:37Speaker 02

  The nature of the case.

• 1:25:39Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:25:39Speaker 02

  That it was a homicide, correct?

• 1:25:41Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:25:42Speaker 02

  Matter of fact, you discussed who the players were, who the people were that were involved. Isn't that right?

• 1:25:48Speaker 03

  I just mentioned Julie and Chris were out earlier in the evening.

• 1:25:52Speaker 02

  So you mentioned the Alberts, correct?

• 1:25:57Speaker 03

  Julie and Chris, yes.

• 1:25:58Speaker 02

  You also mentioned the McCabe's too, didn't you? At some point?

• 1:26:01Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:26:02Speaker 02

  Yeah. You wrote the word homicide, is that right?

• 1:26:05Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:26:05Speaker 02

  You were describing to your sister the nature of the case that you were now assigned. Is that right?

• 1:26:10Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:26:10Speaker 02

  She wrote, "The Canton thing is a homicide." And you wrote, "Don't say a word to anyone," correct?

• 1:26:17Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:26:17Speaker 02

  And then she wrote, "Of course not," isn't that right?

• 1:26:20Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:26:21Speaker 02

  And then you wrote what?

• 1:26:23Speaker 03

  "In the very least, it's suspicious."

• 1:26:25Speaker 02

  "In the very least, it's suspicious," correct?

• 1:26:28Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:26:29Speaker 02

  So at that time, at least at the time that you wrote that text on the 29th, at 3:05 in the afternoon, you believed that the case was suspicious, right?

• 1:26:38Speaker 03

  It was before we found significant pieces of evidence.

• 1:26:41Speaker 02

  So you believed that it was suspicious, that it may involve the Alberts, right?

• 1:26:47Speaker 03

  Absolutely not.

• 1:26:49Speaker 02

  She then writes, "This is your livelihood," didn't you?

• 1:26:52Speaker 03

  She did.

• 1:26:53Speaker 02

  Meaning, this kind of case could make or it could break your career, right?

• 1:27:00Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:27:03Speaker 02

  She then wrote, "I would never mess with that," is that right?

• 1:27:07Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:27:08Speaker 02

  Your sister, Trooper Proctor, was warning you that you shouldn't be investigating a case in which close friends or family members were involved.

• 1:27:18Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:27:19Speaker 02

  On January 30th, 2022, at 9:13 in the morning, your sister texted you again, quote, "Jesus Christ." The party was at one of the Alberts, correct?

• 1:27:32Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:27:33Speaker 02

  And you two were discussing the fact that, to put it in her words, "Jesus Christ, these are our friends," right?

• 1:27:41Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:27:42Speaker 02

  You see the text from you, what's up?

• 1:27:46Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:27:48Speaker 02

  And what's Courtney Proctor's response?

• 1:27:53Speaker 03

  Nothing. I just saw Julie and she said, "When this is all over, she wants to get you a thank you gift." And I respond with, "Get Elizabeth one."

• 1:28:01Speaker 02

  Hang on just a second. Let's take them one at a time. You were asked about this on direct examination by Mr. Lally, right?

• 1:28:07Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:28:08Speaker 02

  And you looked at the jurors, paused, and said, "I never asked for a gift. I never received a gift. Elizabeth never asked for a gift. She never received a gift." You remember that?

• 1:28:18Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:28:20Speaker 02

  You said you never asked for a gift, correct?

• 1:28:22Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:28:23Speaker 02

  What's your next text?

• 1:28:25Speaker 03

  "Get Elizabeth one."

• 1:28:28Speaker 02

  "Get Elizabeth one what?"

• 1:28:31Speaker 03

  Referring to a gift.

• 1:28:32Speaker 02

  Right. So you did, in fact, ask for a gift, didn't you?

• 1:28:36Speaker 03

  For my wife, who had been home with my children for the last 10 nights.

• 1:28:40Speaker 02

  From Julie Albert?

• 1:28:41Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:28:42Speaker 02

  For your participation on this case?

• 1:28:44Speaker 03

  I don't know if that's yes.

• 1:28:46Speaker 02

  Well, Courtney Proctor answers that question by saying, "Because I guess her and Chris were friends and John, and she's so proud of you for leading this investigation," correct?

• 1:28:57Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:28:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  So what do you make of Courtney Proctor texting her brother and saying, "Hey, Julie Albert wants to get you a gift. She's so proud of the way you led this investigation." He's like, "Get my wife Elizabeth one. You know, she's been home with the kids, blah, blah, blah, blah." This is awkward.

• 1:29:11Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, it's awkward. He should have just said, "No gifts. No gifts, especially with what's going on. No gifts whatsoever." "I can't do it. Tell them I appreciate it. I thank them very much, but can't do it." I mean, even as patrolman, we have policy and procedure where if we're at Dunkin' Donuts, shout out Dunkin' Donuts, Dunkin's not better than criminal coffee, but you know what I mean? When you're in a rush. We don't have a drive-through, yet. But no, when you go to Dunkin', they'll sometimes say like, "Hey, here's a free coffee. Don't worry about it." And we're supposed to be adamant about it and say, "Listen, no, I gotta pay you."

• 1:29:42Stephanie Harlowe?

  Derek's like, "We're supposed to." But I mean, getting a cup of coffee from a guy at Dunkin' Donuts who's like, "Hey, thanks for your service,"

• 1:29:49Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, there's been a couple of times I've definitely taken a cup of coffee. I'll be, "You got me."

• 1:29:54Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah.

• 1:29:54Derrick Levasseur?

  "You got me."

• 1:29:55Stephanie Harlowe?

  It's different than Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, taking a gift from Julie Albert, because she's so proud of how he's leading.

• 1:30:03Derrick Levasseur?

  And I'll even take it a step further. I'll even take it a step further. And this is some, you know, just assumption on my part, but I think even Julie Albert reaching out and saying, "Hey, we want to get him a gift," is like preemptively... Getting in front of this by indirectly getting to the lead investigator. They know the Alberts, you know, it's happened on their property and they're going to be in question. And hey, listen, when this is, you know, we just want to get him a gift for the great job he's doing. They're kind of like buttering him up a little bit. And so it's just, it's, I don't like it all the way around. And his simple answer should have been, no, thank you. Let them know. I appreciate it, but I have to stay in the, I have to stay objective and I can't, I can't accept any gifts.

• 1:30:42Derrick Levasseur?

  And I, and neither can my family. That's the correct answer. It shouldn't be that complicated.

• 1:30:46Stephanie Harlowe?

  And in fact, we know that the Proctors and the Alberts were quite close. There's photos from social media showing Michael Proctor with the children of Jen McCabe, the Albert children at Proctor family events, such as weddings and parties and at the Proctor home. In fact, Colin Albert was the ring bearer at Courtney Proctor's wedding where Michael, her brother, was the groomsman. In a Facebook post from October of 2019, Michael Proctor's mother referred to the Alberts as the Proctor second family. And on that same mother's Facebook page, there was also a picture of Michael Proctor's nephew with Colin and Dylan Albert, who are the sons of Chris and Julie Albert, right?

• 1:31:20Derrick Levasseur?

  Can I interject quickly? I just want, before I forget, Michael Proctor is on administrative leave for probably a lot of things. It may be more severe things what I'm, what I'm about to say, but I will tell you, it's my bet, best guess, that at least part of it, just part of it, is that he didn't disclose this information as soon as he showed up and he was, he was assigned this case. He should have said to a supervisor, hey, I'll assist, but someone else has to take the lead. I'm too close to this one. So just for that alone, all these headaches that they have now, just that piece of it was enough to put him on administrative leave because that's the number one thing that should have happened. As soon as he saw who was involved, where John O'Keefe was found, he should have said, hey,

• 1:32:04Derrick Levasseur?

  as much as I'd love to be the lead on this, I got to step back. I just wanted to put that out there.

• 1:32:09Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yes. So on Colin Albert's 14th birthday, Courtney Proctor, Michael Proctor's sister, sent money to his Venmo account with the message, quote, "Happy birthday to one of my favorite all time kids," end quote. And in May of 2022, Courtney posted a picture of Colin on her Facebook page, which said, "Happy 18th to our favorite football star, Colin Albert." So- When you're sitting there and you're asked, "Hey, do you have a relationship or know these people?" And he's like, "No, I don't," right? And then he's on, and then he's in trial and, you know, Jackson is like, "But you said you didn't have a relationship or know them." He's like, "Well, I don't have a relationship with them, but I know them." "You, you have a relationship with them, my dude?"

• 1:32:48Derrick Levasseur?

  It's semantics.

• 1:32:49Stephanie Harlowe?

  You, it's, it's all the same. Either way, you know them or have a relationship with them. Both of these things are true. So to say no to either of them, even if you break it down or try to, you know, pirouette around it, you have a relationship with them and you know them.

• 1:33:03Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I agree. There's a big difference between an acquaintance and, and a relationship. And based on just a little bit of information you told me, you had a relationship with them. You don't have to hang out with them every day. We're not talking about your best friends. We're talking about, "Could you go grab a beer with them? Could you have dinner with them?"

• 1:33:17Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, your families are tight, man, which is even more than a friend and more than a relationship. The, the Alberts are the Proctor's second family.

• 1:33:26Derrick Levasseur?

  And by the way, nothing wrong with this if you disclose it initially, because they would have removed him from the case or at least had him take a secondary role and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

• 1:33:34Stephanie Harlowe?

  He shouldn't have been anywhere near that case with as close as he was to these people.

• 1:33:37Derrick Levasseur?

  Well, you could, when I mean secondary, it could be something where it's along the lines of, "Hey, take, take the, take the affidavit down to the judge, get it signed." You know, something along that lines. But, um, but no, you, you didn't do that. You didn't do that. And, and is probably for a lot of reasons. I'll never know truly why Proctor didn't do that. But I will say that part of it might have been, "Oh, this is a good case. I, I want to be involved with it." But he should have separated himself immediately. He should have been nowhere near it.

• 1:34:05Stephanie Harlowe?

  Mm-hmm. Okay, we are not done with Michael Proctor yet because his unprofessionalism knows no bounds.

• 1:34:13Speaker 02

  Trooper Proctor, Proctor, Trooper DeChico had sent you a photograph of my colleague, Mr. Yunetti, correct?

• 1:34:22Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:34:23Speaker 02

  You see that, gentlemen?

• 1:34:24Speaker 03

  I do, sir.

• 1:34:25Speaker 02

  Is that the photograph that you received?

• 1:34:27Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:34:28Speaker 02

  And your response was what?

• 1:34:31Speaker 03

  "I hate that man. I truly hate that man."

• 1:34:33Speaker 02

  Actually, your response was, "I'm going through his retarded client's phone right now," correct?

• 1:34:41Speaker 03

  Yes, after the picture, sir, yes.

• 1:34:43Speaker 02

  Who's the retarded client?

• 1:34:46Speaker 03

  I was referring to Ms. Reed, again, unprofessional language.

• 1:34:51Speaker 02

  I'm asking who you were referring to.

• 1:34:53Speaker 03

  Ms. Reed.

• 1:34:53Speaker 02

  I know you've got an explanation. Who was it that you were referring to, as retarded?

• 1:34:58Speaker 03

  Ms. Reed.

• 1:34:58Speaker 02

  Karen Reed, the woman sitting to my left.

• 1:35:00Speaker 03

  Yes, sir.

• 1:35:01Speaker 02

  The subject of your investigation, as a professional, correct?

• 1:35:04Speaker 03

  Yes, sir.

• 1:35:04Speaker 02

  As an unbiased, objective investigator, the person that you were investigating, you referred to, to your bosses, as retarded, correct?

• 1:35:14Speaker 03

  Again, poor language on my part.

• 1:35:16Speaker 02

  Poor language is one way to put it, completely offensive is another way to put it, right?

• 1:35:21Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:35:23Speaker 06

  I've got to sustain that, Mr. Jackson.

• 1:35:26Speaker 02

  After you referred to my client as retarded, then you decided to make a comment about Mr. Yunetti, her lawyer, correct?

• 1:35:36Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:35:37Speaker 02

  And what did you say about Mr. Yunetti again?

• 1:35:39Speaker 03

  I hate that man, I truly hate that man.

• 1:35:41Speaker 02

  I hate that man, I truly hate him, correct?

• 1:35:45Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:35:45Speaker 02

  You didn't say I dislike him, I disagree with him, you said I hate him, correct?

• 1:35:50Speaker 03

  Correct, sir.

• 1:35:51Speaker 02

  That's a visceral response to someone who's just doing a job, correct?

• 1:35:55Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:35:57Speaker 06

  Sustained, you can ask it differently.

• 1:35:59Speaker 02

  Sure, let me ask it this way, were you upset, or annoyed, or pissed off that Karen Reed had gotten representation, legal representation, to represent her?

• 1:36:10Speaker 03

  No, not at all, that's her right.

• 1:36:12Speaker 02

  Well, let me ask you this, in August of 2022, you said you absolutely hate him, correct?

• 1:36:20Speaker 03

  I don't know if I used absolutely. I didn't use absolutely, sir.

• 1:36:25Speaker 02

  You used truly, correct?

• 1:36:26Speaker 03

  Truly, yes.

• 1:36:28Speaker 02

  How do you feel about him now, he's sitting right there?

• 1:36:30Speaker 03

  I still don't care for him now.

• 1:36:33Speaker 06

  I'll let it stand.

• 1:36:36Speaker 02

  What did you tell your colleagues that you were looking for as you sat at almost 10:00 PM at night, on a Wednesday night, August 17th, 2022, looking through Karen Reed's phone?

• 1:36:48Speaker 03

  I didn't tell them I was looking through anything. They knew I was going through Ms. Reed's phone. I provided a inappropriate joke as an update. They knew I was going through location data, text messages, Google searches. But like I had mentioned earlier, I had stopped.

• 1:37:03Speaker 02

  Except, Trevor Proctor, none of that really professional sounding stuff ended up in your comments to your bosses, did it?

• 1:37:11Speaker 03

  Again, it was a poor joke.

• 1:37:13Speaker 02

  Is that yes or no?

• 1:37:14Speaker 03

  It did not, no.

• 1:37:16Speaker 02

  It did not?

• 1:37:17Speaker 03

  No, sir.

• 1:37:18Speaker 02

  As a matter of fact, what did you write after you talked about going through the, quote, "retarded" client's phone?

• 1:37:24Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:37:25Speaker 06

  I'll allow it.

• 1:37:26Speaker 03

  Uh, no nudes so far.

• 1:37:31Speaker 02

  No nudes so far, correct?

• 1:37:34Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:37:35Speaker 02

  And you said that to your bosses?

• 1:37:37Speaker 03

  Yes, sir.

• 1:37:39Speaker 02

  You were looking for naked photographs of Ms. Reed on a Wednesday night as you sat in your office at 9:44 PM, correct?

• 1:37:50Speaker 03

  No, not correct.

• 1:37:51Speaker 02

  Let me ask you a question. Have you ever, ever looked for naked photos of a male suspect that you were investigating?

• 1:37:59Speaker 03

  I don't look for naked photos on anyone's phones.

• 1:38:01Speaker 02

  But you said you were looking for nudes of Ms. Reed, correct?

• 1:38:04Speaker 03

  Like I said, Mr. Jackson, it was an inappropriate joke.

• 1:38:07Speaker 02

  So this is a citizen. She's a woman. You were supposed to be objectively investigating. Does your text message to your colleagues at Massachusetts State Police reflect an objective investigation of a citizen?

• 1:38:24Speaker 03

  Objection. I believe poor jokes have, in unprofessional language, have no bearing on the integrity and the facts and physical evidence of this case.

• 1:38:33Speaker 02

  Well, let me ask you a question. Did you, did you find any nudes?

• 1:38:37Speaker 03

  Again.

• 1:38:38Speaker 02

  Of Karen Reed?

• 1:38:39Speaker 03

  I didn't go through the photos, sir.

• 1:38:40Speaker 02

  Did you find any nudes of Karen Reed?

• 1:38:42Speaker 03

  I didn't go through the photos, sir. I came up-

• 1:38:44Speaker 02

  You weren't successful in your quest.

• 1:38:45Speaker 03

  I came across, uh, text messages from Ms. Reed to another attorney on January 29th, so I had to stop looking through her phone.

• 1:38:52Speaker 02

  So you got sidetracked before you could get to the naked pictures of Ms. Reed? Objection.

• 1:38:58Speaker 06

  Sustained.

• 1:38:59Speaker 02

  To be clear, when you sent those text messages on that group chat, those text messages included, as we said, or as you said- Not one, but two of your supervisors, correct?

• 1:39:12Speaker 03

  Right.

• 1:39:13Speaker 02

  Were you ever reprimanded for your conduct in sending that text message?

• 1:39:17Speaker 03

  Objection.

• 1:39:19Speaker 06

  So, that's sustained. Do we need to go to sidebar based on what you told me earlier?

• 1:39:24Speaker 02

  We do not.

• 1:39:25Speaker 06

  Okay, so...

• 1:39:26Speaker 02

  I'll ask it a different way.

• 1:39:27Speaker 06

  Okay.

• 1:39:27Speaker 02

  Did either Trooper Fanning or Trooper Bukkeneck dress you down in a responsive text message, in that text thread, for doing something so abhorrent as looking for nudes or referring to nudes of a female suspect or subject of your investigation? Did that ever happen?

• 1:39:49Speaker 03

  Not that I can recall.

• 1:39:50Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so I think we get the picture.

• 1:39:52Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah.

• 1:39:53Stephanie Harlowe?

  This dude sucks.

• 1:39:54Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, he's unprofessional. I mean, he keeps saying it. And that's all that Jackson is trying to establish, like, hey, forget the noise, forget everything else. And listen, this is what he's supposed to do, you know? This guy's gonna present, this investigator's gonna present evidence that he uncovered in his case. Some of it I may be able to dispute, some I may not. But what I want you to remember, every time you look at a piece of evidence or a report with his name on it, this is who you're talking about, this is who you're thinking about. And just by doing that, that's exactly what Jackson should be doing, because it's the truth. If this guy can't even be serious in a text message while he's doing his job, you have to wonder what he's saying not in a text message. You know, this is what was recorded.

• 1:40:38Derrick Levasseur?

  And if Proctor had half a brain, he would know that there's a chance these things could be subpoenaed, and yet, he's still doing it. So again, it just makes me wonder, what is he saying that wasn't recorded, that wasn't in a text message? It's concerning.

• 1:40:51Stephanie Harlowe?

  Goes a little bit deeper here, though, because this isn't a chat message with his high school friends.

• 1:40:54Derrick Levasseur?

  That's his supervisors.

• 1:40:55Stephanie Harlowe?

  He's got other law enforcement in this chat, and two of his supervisors who are also taking part in it. So this is what the defense, and I think a lot of the people who are rallying behind Karen Reed, are trying to point out. It's not just Michael Proctor who's a bad apple. It looks like the whole department, or at least the people who are in charge of the department... They kind of suck. And are they doing this in other cases? Is this how they're running investigations? It seems like it because nobody was like, oh, this is a weird way to talk about this, or why are we doing this? It seems like this is just par for the course for them.

• 1:41:31Derrick Levasseur?

  It is very easy and right to say that this is unprofessional, and this includes the supervisors that are seeing this and not addressing it immediately, whether it's a sidebar text or in person where there's some type of punishment being administered, right? That's unprofessional. It should not happen. There's a lot that can be taken from Proctor's statements and the way he conducts himself. The fact that the supervisors did not correct him or pull him aside and at least give him a verbal warning, something that could would have been documented, that is a problem. But as far as how those officers, those supervisors, conduct themselves in their investigations, if you show me something and it shows that they do, I will gladly be right here condemning that as well.

• 1:42:16Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right, let's take our last break, and we will be right back.

• 1:42:24Stephanie Harlowe?

  So before we wrap up, I want to talk about some cell phones because we have two Bryans in this case that did some weird things with their cell phones after John O'Keefe was found dead on the front lawn of the Albert's home. Brian Albert was given a preservation order for his cellphone use from January 28th to February 28th, 2022. And Brian Albert testified that he was due for a new phone, so he had upgraded before learning about that order. Now, in cross-examination, Alan Jackson got Brian Albert to admit that the preservation order was given to him on September 23rd, 2022, and Albert had gone and gotten a new phone on September 22nd, 2022. And Jackson wanted to know if Brian Albert was aware that when he upgraded his phone,

• 1:43:06Stephanie Harlowe?

  the old phone gets factory reset, which would have destroyed the very data that he was ordered to preserve. Brian Albert responded, quote, "September 4th was my birthday. My phone was broken and failing. I had planned on getting a new phone, and that just happened to be the day I got it." End quote. And Alan Jackson responded, quote, "Happy birthday. Was that a coincidence?" End quote. So he's trying to basically say... Hey, you know, you have friends in law enforcement, including Michael Proctor, and maybe you got the heads up of when that preservation order was coming, and maybe the day before, that wasn't a coincidence that you got a new phone and had your old phone factory reset, right? That's what he's trying to say.

• 1:43:46Derrick Levasseur?

  Yep, I see what he's saying.

• 1:43:47Stephanie Harlowe?

  So Jackson reminded Brian Albert that he'd been asked at another hearing in June of 2023 if this timing had been a coincidence, and Brian had replied, "Yes, it was a coincidence." Then, Jackson started talking about Brian Higgins, the ATF agent, who had also gotten rid of his phone.

• 1:44:04Speaker 07

  I don't think I talked to Brian Higgins about getting rid of my phones.

• 1:44:07Speaker 02

  Well, you just said, you can't rule out the fact that you had conversations with Brian Higgins about your phones and possibly getting rid of your phones. Right?

• 1:44:17Speaker 07

  Uh, no, I don't think that's what I said.

• 1:44:20Speaker 02

  You two discussed the fact that you both wanted to get rid of your phones.

• 1:44:25Speaker 07

  I don't remember having that conversation with Brian Higgins at all.

• 1:44:27Speaker 02

  Your testimony was, quote, "I know there were conversations about the phones, sir." Correct?

• 1:44:36Speaker 07

  Correct that that's what you read.

• 1:44:39Speaker 02

  So if you're having conversations with Brian Higgins about the phones, what the heck were you talking about?

• 1:44:45Speaker 07

  I don't know the timing of when they asked when those conversations were.

• 1:44:49Speaker 02

  Mr. Albert, I'm leaving it open to you. I don't care when it was. I'm asking you, have you ever had a conversation with Brian Higgins about your phones, respectively?

• 1:45:01Speaker 07

  We may have, I just don't, I can't remember that conversation specifically.

• 1:45:06Speaker 02

  Then why, in June of 2023, did you testify, "I know there were conversations about the phones," with Brian Higgins? End quote.

• 1:45:16Speaker 07

  I'm not sure of the context of that.

• 1:45:19Speaker 02

  So now you just can't remember?

• 1:45:20Speaker 07

  No, I don't think I could remember during that testimony either. I think if you-

• 1:45:25Speaker 02

  Read the whole thing. I I think I said I I'm not sure. I don't remember. Your quote was, I know there were conversations about the phones. I just can't say if he said he was going to get rid of his phone or not. Right, right. That help refresh your recollection? Yes. So now as you sit here and you answer my question, did you and Brian Higgins have a conversation about your phones? I don't remember having that conversation with Brian Higgins.

• 1:45:54Speaker 02

  You're aware that Brian Higgins has also gotten rid of his phone, correct?

• 1:45:59Speaker 02

  I am not aware of that until after the time you're talking about. So without qualifying your answer, answer my question. As you sit here, you're aware that Brian Higgins has also gotten rid of his phone? I know at some point, Brian Higgins. Yes or no, Mr. Albert? Did he?

• 1:46:20Speaker 07

  Jackson, no.

• 1:46:21Stephanie Harlowe?

  Can you answer that yes or no, sir?

• 1:46:23Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:46:24Stephanie Harlowe?

  So in fact, Brian Higgins went to some great lengths to get rid of his phone. On September 29th, 2022, coincidentally, one day before he would receive a court order to preserve his phone, Higgins changed his cellphone number, then he drove to a military base in Cape Cod and threw his destroyed SIM card and phone into a dumpster there. Unfortunately, Higgins failed to transfer anything from his old phone to his new phone.

• 1:46:53Speaker 02

  So where's your phone?

• 1:46:54Speaker 06

  I do not have that phone anymore.

• 1:46:57Speaker 02

  You've destroyed that phone, haven't you?

• 1:46:58Speaker 06

  No, I threw the phone away.

• 1:47:00Speaker 02

  Well, that's destroying the phone, isn't it?

• 1:47:03Speaker 06

  I had every right to do that.

• 1:47:05Speaker 02

  I didn't ask you about your rights. I asked you what you did.

• 1:47:08Speaker 07

  Jackson.

• 1:47:09Speaker 06

  Sustained.

• 1:47:10Speaker 02

  You destroyed the phone by removing the SIM card. Correct?

• 1:47:15Speaker 07

  Jackson.

• 1:47:16Speaker 06

  Sustained.

• 1:47:17Speaker 02

  Did you do that? Did you pull the SIM card out?

• 1:47:20Speaker 07

  Jackson.

• 1:47:22Stephanie Harlowe?

  Did you pull the SIM card out of your?

• 1:47:25Speaker 06

  Your Honor, to the best of my recollection, if I did take the SIM card out, I would have if I was, when I threw it away, if I was gonna take it out, I would break it or cut it. But I did not wipe the phone. I did not take anything else off it. But if I was gonna throw the phone away, that's what I would have done. Okay.

• 1:47:47Speaker 02

  You know, as an ATF agent with electronic data experience, when you pull the SIM card out and break it, and then throw the phone away and the SIM card away, you don't need to wipe the phone.

• 1:47:57Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 1:47:58Speaker 06

  Sustained. Mr. Jackson, that's it.

• 1:48:01Speaker 02

  Your Honor.

• 1:48:02Speaker 06

  One more question.

• 1:48:03Speaker 02

  Mr. Higgins, very simply, and then we're done.

• 1:48:07Speaker 02

  Did you remove the SIM card for that phone, drive onto a military base, throw the SIM card in one dumpster, and the phone in a different dumpster?

• 1:48:16Speaker 06

  That is not correct.

• 1:48:17Speaker 02

  Did you testify that-

• 1:48:19Speaker 06

  That was your one question, Mr. Jackson.

• 1:48:23Speaker 06

  All right. Folks, that's it for today.

• 1:48:25Derrick Levasseur?

  I don't know why the judge cut him off. She really wanted to get out of there. I actually wanted to hear them expand on that, because Higgins was adamant he didn't do that. So I would have liked to see Jackson follow up on it.

• 1:48:36Stephanie Harlowe?

  It turns out, like, he's like, no, I threw them in the same dumpster.

• 1:48:39Derrick Levasseur?

  Threw them in the same dumpster. Oh, I mean, that's better than, the way Jackson explained it, where they're like, you deliberately threw the SIM card in one dumpster, and the phone in the other. I was like, wow.

• 1:48:48Stephanie Harlowe?

  He had previously testified to doing that.

• 1:48:51Derrick Levasseur?

  To doing that.

• 1:48:52Stephanie Harlowe?

  To throwing his SIM card, to taking his SIM card out of it. That's why this line of questioning is happening, because he's already testified.

• 1:48:57Derrick Levasseur?

  I think the judge had to go to the bathroom or something.

• 1:48:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  No, the judge wants, the judge doesn't want him to answer that and incriminate himself. In my opinion, allegedly, don't come for me. But he had previously testified that he'd taken the SIM card out, broken it, and then driven onto this military base in Cape Cod, right? Which- is not Canton where he lives. He drove to a different place and he threw the SIM card in one dumpster and then threw the phone into another on a military base. Why? Why?

• 1:49:26Derrick Levasseur?

  But you're saying he didn't, he's saying he didn't do that?

• 1:49:28Stephanie Harlowe?

  Now he's saying he didn't, but in a previous testimony, he did say that he did. Yes.

• 1:49:32Derrick Levasseur?

  Okay.

• 1:49:33Stephanie Harlowe?

  That's why he's being questioned about this. And obviously, we know it looks shady when someone connected to an ongoing crime investigation gets rid of their phone in a timely fashion, such as right before they're about to get a preservation order for said phone. And it's not crazy to think that because Brian Albert and Brian Higgins are law enforcement and because they both know and are close to officers with both the Canton Police and the Massachusetts State Police, that they might have had a heads up of when that preservation order was expected to arrive because the timing, once again, is very convenient. But why would it have been illuminating to see what was in Brian Albert and Brian Higgins' phones, to see what kind of communications they were having with each other and others? Well, in this case, the defense claims there are nine calls unaccounted for. We already discussed a few

• 1:50:17Stephanie Harlowe?

  of these specifically. Jen McCabe's multiple phone calls to John O'Keefe, which she claims were butt dials, even though none of them went to voicemail. But we also have Brian Albert making a call to Brian Higgins at 2:20 a.m. on January 29, 2022, just a few hours before John O'Keefe's body was discovered in his front yard. This call lasted one second. And then when asked to explain why the call was made on the stand, Brian Albert said, quote, "I butt dial people often and make inadvertent calls. I could have hit a last call from him by accident," end quote. Now, of course, we would, once again, there's a lot of butt dials happening here. Higgins would also testify that he never answered this call from Brian Albert, but once again, he would have had to have either answered

• 1:51:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  it, or Brian Albert would have had to have called and then ended the call, or it would have gone to voicemail, which it did not. So 17 seconds after that call took place, another call was placed from Higgins' phone to Albert's phone, and this call lasted 22 seconds. Once again, when questioned about why that phone call was placed, Brian Higgins said, just like Brian Albert said, must have been a butt dial. Now, in a prior hearing, both men had answered these same questions slightly differently. Brian Albert had said when the one-second call was placed, he was in bed with his wife having some intimate time. And when asked about the 22-second call in a prior hearing, Brian Higgins had testified that he'd called Brian Albert back after the call that Brian Albert made to him at 2:28 a.m.

• 1:51:44Stephanie Harlowe?

  But he said they did not have a conversation.

• 1:51:47Speaker 02

  So the fact is, you were speaking to Brian Albert in the middle of the night, approximately three hours before Mr. O'Keefe's body was found in his yard, correct?

• 1:51:57Speaker 03

  No, that's not correct.

• 1:51:58Speaker 02

  And then, of course, you lied about that under oath in that prior proceeding by saying, "I don't remember this phone call."

• 1:52:06Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 1:52:07Speaker 02

  Did you, in fact, tell the truth at the prior proceeding when you said, "I don't remember that phone call"?

• 1:52:14Speaker 03

  I always tell the truth.

• 1:52:15Speaker 02

  Did you lie under oath, sir?

• 1:52:17Speaker 03

  No, I did not.

• 1:52:19Speaker 02

  Would you tell us if you did?

• 1:52:20Speaker 07

  Objection, Your Honor.

• 1:52:21Speaker 02

  Sustained. You acknowledged that there's a 22-second phone call in your phone records, correct?

• 1:52:29Speaker 03

  That's what's reflected by the record.

• 1:52:31Speaker 02

  And 22 seconds is quite an amount of time, would you agree?

• 1:52:35Speaker 03

  It's 22 seconds.

• 1:52:36Speaker 02

  As a matter of fact, it's about this long, with the court's permission.

• 1:52:40Speaker 06

  The court does not get permission, that's argument, Mr. Jackson.

• 1:52:43Speaker 02

  If we were to count off 22 seconds, it's an uncomfortably long time, is it not?

• 1:52:48Speaker 03

  No.

• 1:52:49Speaker 02

  It's long enough to have a conversation, isn't it?

• 1:52:51Speaker 03

  I didn't have a conversation.

• 1:52:52Speaker 02

  Is 22 seconds long enough to have a conversation?

• 1:52:55Speaker 03

  No.

• 1:52:56Speaker 02

  You can't, a human being can't have a conversation in 22 seconds?

• 1:53:00Speaker 03

  Sure they could, I don't think it's anything of substance.

• 1:53:02Speaker 02

  Okay, so that's my question. Is it 22 seconds long enough to have a conversation?

• 1:53:08Speaker 03

  I don't agree with it, no.

• 1:53:10Speaker 02

  Now, when you were asked about this, and you were shown these records at that prior hearing, you had an explanation for what that 22-second call may have been and what the prior call may have been, correct?

• 1:53:28Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:53:29Speaker 02

  What was your explanation?

• 1:53:31Speaker 03

  Well, I used a phrase that people commonly used as a "butt dial."

• 1:53:37Speaker 02

  So you think it's possible that you may have butt dialed Brian Albert for a 22-second call that you're not aware of?

• 1:53:45Speaker 03

  I think it's possible that he could have been inadvertently called back, but I have no recollection of that, nor did I have any conversation with anybody.

• 1:53:52Speaker 02

  But you admitted that you lived alone, correct, Mr. Higgins?

• 1:53:55Speaker 03

  That's correct.

• 1:53:56Speaker 02

  You have an iPhone at the time?

• 1:53:58Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:53:59Speaker 02

  Matter of fact, that number, reflecting those records, is in fact, or was in fact, an iPhone, is that right?

• 1:54:05Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:54:06Speaker 02

  You already indicated under oath that you don't sleep with your iPhone, you keep it on your bedside table, is that right?

• 1:54:10Speaker 03

  Most often, yes.

• 1:54:11Speaker 02

  There's nobody else in your room, is that right?

• 1:54:13Speaker 03

  That's correct.

• 1:54:14Speaker 02

  And you had your ringer on because you were awakened the next morning by a call from Keith Berkowitz, right?

• 1:54:21Speaker 03

  Yes, the ringer was on.

• 1:54:22Speaker 02

  When somebody calls you and you miss the call, there's a notification that shows up on that iPhone, isn't that right?

• 1:54:29Speaker 03

  I don't know how mine's set up at the time, I don't know.

• 1:54:33Speaker 02

  If you open up your phone app and you go to recents, it shows all the missed calls, correct?

• 1:54:38Speaker 03

  I think you can get to them, yes.

• 1:54:40Speaker 02

  And you know that the iPhone does not automatically call people back? That is not a thing, right? Miss a call from someone, it's not just going to automatically re-ring them?

• 1:54:49Speaker 03

  Yes, I think we both know that, yes.

• 1:54:52Speaker 02

  So, to call somebody back, you have to go on your iPhone, open it up from a locked position, navigate to a phone application, then navigate to a contact, and then make a call, correct?

• 1:55:06Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 1:55:07Speaker 06

  Sustained, you can break it down.

• 1:55:09Speaker 02

  So how'd you butt dial?

• 1:55:10Speaker 03

  I didn't make any calls, I have no recollection of any calls, nor did I speak with anybody.

• 1:55:16Speaker 02

  After you were shown these phone records at that prior hearing, in that hearing at least, you finally admitted that you did in fact call Brian Albert back, but this time you claimed the two of you just sort of sat in silence, isn't that right?

• 1:55:32Speaker 07

  Objection.

• 1:55:33Speaker 06

  So I'm going to sustain it in that form, you can ask it appropriately, Mr. Jackson.

• 1:55:38Speaker 02

  Did you ever previously testify that you did in fact make the call, but you did not have a conversation during the course of the call?

• 1:55:48Speaker 03

  What I think I testified was... Something must have happened, but I didn't have any phone call.

• 1:55:54Speaker 02

  Do you remember being asked, quote, "Did you call him back?" end quote, and you answered, "Yes." And then there was a question-

• 1:56:03Speaker 03

  There was a series of questions there. That's only a fragment of what I said.

• 1:56:07Speaker 02

  I'm not done yet, Mr. Higgins. Can you answer my question?

• 1:56:10Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:56:11Speaker 02

  To the question, "Did you call him back?" Your answer was "Yes," correct?

• 1:56:16Speaker 03

  I think it was kind of "I must have."

• 1:56:18Speaker 02

  Then you were asked, well, the answer was "Yes," and then there was a call between me back and forth where you spoke over each other's words, right?

• 1:56:26Speaker 03

  It was dialogue back and forth about this whole thing, yes.

• 1:56:30Speaker 02

  You then said, a little bit further in that same conversation, "I did not have a conversation," correct?

• 1:56:36Speaker 03

  I did not have a conversation with anybody.

• 1:56:39Speaker 02

  And the question following that was, "You just listened to the phone, what someone was telling you?" Answer, "It's possible that the phone picked up on the other end and nobody said anything, and then I terminated the call," end quote. That's what you said at the other hearing under oath, correct? Yes or no?

• 1:56:56Speaker 03

  Can I see it?

• 1:56:57Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 1:56:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay, so, it is weird that all these people claim they'd parted ways before these calls happened. Brian Albert was in bed with his wife, having some intimate time, but now they're calling each other. And it kind of reminds me, remember the Crystal Rogers case where her boyfriend, Brooks Houck, had a brother, Nick, who was a Bardstown police officer? And then that night that Crystal went missing, there was a bunch of random phone calls and texts going back between Brooks and a few others, and a lot of those calls were short, seconds. But then the calls would be returned, and in that case, that we had decided it seemed like maybe the short calls that lasted only a second or two were basically signals to the other party to call back or communicate back in some way, you

• 1:57:37Stephanie Harlowe?

  know? And so, for Brian Albert to call Brian Higgins at 2:22, and it's a one-second call, meaning you gotta hang up, get a call, and then hang up. And then Brian Higgins calls him back, and then there's like a 22-second, like, call, and he's like, "I have no recollection of making this call," but before, he had testified, "Yeah, I did make the call, but we didn't talk about anything. We just sat there." So, clearly, something doesn't add up. They cannot be butt dials if they do not go to voicemail, because you have to end the call. We discussed this with John McCabe. So, it's super sketchy. It's super sketchy.

• 1:58:13Derrick Levasseur?

  My takeaway is I don't really- Take too much into it. 22 seconds. I don't know what could have been conveyed. I get why he's doing it. The defense is doing their job. They're creating reasonable doubt. They're showing these connections. They're showing these anomalies. They may mean something. They may mean nothing, but for them, it doesn't matter. They're just showing it, which they should be doing. But I wasn't listening to this like I was listening to the last clip as far as his physical action of destroying of the phone. That to me is something much more compelling.

• 1:58:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  In combination, is it compelling?

• 1:58:42Derrick Levasseur?

  No, it's just that for me, it's like, why was he destroying his phone at that time? Why wouldn't you just for the sake of safety, hold on to it in case that someone wanted to see it if you had nothing to hide? But this 22 second call, I get why he's doing it, but I'm not sitting here going, oh my God, yep, the 22 second call. It's they got him.

• 1:59:00Stephanie Harlowe?

  Okay. So how would you explain them seeing their butt dials? When somebody's actively pushing the call button and then pushing the start, the end button to end the call? How would you explain that?

• 1:59:11Derrick Levasseur?

  So I mean, listen, I'm not trying to defend it. I've had times where I've had my iPhone in my pocket and I've had it unlocked or whatever. I was looking at it. It's unlocked. It's in my pocket. All of a sudden I hear someone saying hello from my pocket. I'm like, hey, what's up?

• 1:59:26Derrick Levasseur?

  I'm not trying to justify. I could see a world where the phone is activated. It calls him and then they real, he realizes, oh shit, I called Brian or I called, you know, whoever and you hang it up. The fact that he doesn't remember it is not good for him. It would have been much better again, like with many of these instances, even if he was lying. He just said, yeah, I realized I butt dialed him. So I was looking at the phone. It was about a 22 second call. Obviously no one was on the other end. So I hung it up and went on without my day, but the fact that there's conflicting stories between different testimonies. That's why we're sitting here discussing it. Otherwise we wouldn't be.

• 2:00:03Stephanie Harlowe?

  So Brian Higgins did eventually have a, a reason that he had gotten rid of his phone.

• 2:00:09Derrick Levasseur?

  Even though, even though I don't know what the reason is, it's too late.

• 2:00:12Stephanie Harlowe?

  Well, initially. In a prior trial, he had testified that he'd gotten rid of it because it was old. But during this trial, he gave a completely different reason for the strange covert disposal of his phone and SIM card.

• 2:00:25Speaker 06

  As you mentioned, Brian Higgins returned to the stand today. It lasted about an hour, and he's the ATF agent who also characterizes himself as a John O'Keefe friend. And also, most relevant to this case, he testified last week that he shared a kiss and even some flirty messages with Karen Reed in the weeks leading up to her boyfriend, John O'Keefe's death. Now, back on the stand this morning, his testimony mostly focused on his cellphone, where those messages lived, but also many texts and phone calls between himself and the Kent police chief, along with Brian Albert, the homeowner. And he was questioned repeatedly about why he destroyed his phone, first saying it was just broken and old, then saying there was another issue.

• 2:01:02Speaker 04

  What, if anything else, was going on with reference to your personal phone that led you to want to get rid?

• 2:01:10Speaker 03

  So, in July of 2022, I had a target of an investigation I was working who alleged that... He called me on my personal cellphone. And when I questioned him as to the fact how he obtained my personal telephone number, he told me that his girlfriend had obtained it off of open source internet, which I later confirmed that it was... That number was out there.

• 2:01:47Speaker 06

  So Higgins testified that issue happened in July, but he pushed back... The defense pushed back, saying that the timing is suspicious. And they added that it really wasn't until months later, in September, specifically 24 hours before a court order, to keep his phone for evidence that he chose to destroy everything.

• 2:02:04Speaker 04

  September 29th of 2022, you changed your phone number and got a new phone. And then September 30th, the next day, you were served with the preservation order, correct?

• 2:02:16Speaker 03

  I got the preservation order on the 30th. That's correct.

• 2:02:19Stephanie Harlowe?

  All right. So I know you already suspect this, but I'm not buying it. He found out his phone and his phone number were compromised in July of 2022, but he didn't get rid of it until the end of September 2022, the day before the preservation order for his phone was going to come through. If you knew your phone was on the open source network or whatever the hell, and you know that people are, you know, have it who might be wish you harm or whatever, then you'd probably want to get rid of it then. You wouldn't wait till the end of September. You wouldn't wait till three months later.

• 2:02:55Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, this may surprise you, but I actually agree with you. I think that if the phone was compromised, you would have wanted to switch that number immediately. The fact that he didn't, that's fine. Maybe he changed his mind. But then months later, a day before getting this preservation letter, he decides to not only switch the number, but destroy the phone. Too coincidental for me. So I'm with you there. I don't know how he knew, but if that happened, he is just one of the most unlucky guys I've ever seen because that is a really suspicious timing. And I understand why the defense is capitalizing on it. See how that works? See, sometimes we can agree. See that?

• 2:03:35Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yes, and I'm happy because it's pretty, pretty evident. Okay, Brian Higgins also claimed that he was the first to leave the Albert home that night. He said he left around 1 a.m. and that would check out with Ryan Nagel's story. Remember, he arrived to Fairview Lane that night to pick up his sister Julie, and he did not see Higgins' Jeep. And he and his friends parked in the exact same spot that Higgins claimed he had parked in. However, Higgins testified that he left the Albert home around 1. Ryan Nagel was there at 12:30. So he probably left earlier than that. And Higgins testified that after leaving the Albert home, he drove to the Canton Police Department. But according to surveillance, he didn't arrive to the Canton Police Department until 1:30 a.m.

• 2:04:19Stephanie Harlowe?

  So if his Jeep was not at the Albert's at around 12:30 a.m. when Ryan Nagel got there, and he didn't get to the police station until 1:30 a.m., what was he doing? Driving around Canton under the influence of alcohol when he knew a huge blizzard was coming and it had already started to snow? So you'd think he'd want to be safe and sound at home by the time that snow started to like really fall in earnest. So Higgins claims he went to the Canton Police Department to move his government surveillance vehicle at the behest of Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz, and this was so that the police station lock could be plowed. And after this Higgins testified that he drove to his home in West Roxbury where he ate, had a couple of drinks, alcoholic drinks, and then fell asleep before waking up hours later to his personal phone quote "blowing

• 2:05:01Stephanie Harlowe?

  up." He had received multiple calls from Chief Berkowitz and Brian Albert, and Brian Albert told him John O'Keefe had been found dead on his front lawn. So on January 30th, Higgins also went to a fellow ATF agent, who was also his best friend, and this guy happens to work in the FBI's Regional Computer Forensics Lab, and Higgins asked this guy for advice on how to extract information from his own cellphone. During the trial, Higgins said, quote, "I asked him how I could pull text strings off my cellular telephone for the purpose of providing them to law enforcement," end quote. Later during cross, Higgins admitted that he could have just turned over his entire device to the police.

• 2:05:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  He also confirmed that he'd visited the forensics lab and used a kiosk in an unrestricted area to pull information from his phone. Alan Jackson questioned Higgins about whether or not he was aware that federal regulations bar the use of one's public office for private gain, and Higgins said, "No, I wasn't aware of that." So, um, yeah. After talking to Brian Albert on the morning of the 29th, Higgins went over to 34 Fairview. He stayed there for a little bit before he returned to the Canton Police Department, even though he was not on duty, and he remained there for the better part of the day. Key card swipes show that Higgins accessed the Sally Port at the Canton Police Department 90 minutes before Karen Reed's SUV was driven in there. And as you heard, Higgins claimed

• 2:06:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  he was not there for the case. He said he used the Sally Port as a common pass-through. When Alan Jackson asked if Higgins was aware that the surveillance video supplied to the defense from the Sally Port garage was missing between 5:08 and 5:50 PM, and Karen's SUV pinged as arriving at the Sally Port at 5:36 PM, meaning the time her car entered Sally Port, the video didn't catch it. So the inside video did catch it. We saw that. It was inverted. The outside of the Sally Port surveillance video, there's 42 minutes missing. Okay?

• 2:07:01Stephanie Harlowe?

  That that 42 minutes may have shown whether or not Karen's taillight was broken before pulling into Sallyport because as we know, the video was inverted, so we didn't see that side of the taillight when it came in. Now, ADA Lally claimed this 42 minutes was missing because the camera is motion activated, but you would think the camera would have been motion activated when Karen's SUV arrived.

• 2:07:22Speaker 02

  This video from Canton Police Department's Sallyport garage that wasn't turned over, right?

• 2:07:30Speaker 03

  That video was discovered later on and then handed over.

• 2:07:35Speaker 02

  The first time you revealed the existence of that footage was in that separate proceeding in February of 2024. Isn't that right? You did know, however, that if you had video at the Sallyport, it would clearly show that Ms. Reeves' vehicle arrived at 5:30, 5:31. You knew that, correct?

• 2:07:57Speaker 03

  Yes, from the driveway camera.

• 2:07:59Speaker 02

  On April 4th, 2024, you turned over one video from the interior of the Sallyport garage, correct?

• 2:08:06Speaker 03

  Yes, sir.

• 2:08:06Speaker 02

  The interior, not the exterior, right?

• 2:08:09Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 2:08:09Speaker 02

  And that, remarkably enough, was a grainy video, right?

• 2:08:15Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:08:15Speaker 02

  And that video is missing the precise time that that vehicle was delivered to the Sallyport, correct?

• 2:08:22Speaker 07

  Yep, Jackson.

• 2:08:24Speaker 05

  Was it? Now allow it.

• 2:08:27Speaker 03

  I don't recall.

• 2:08:28Speaker 02

  It's missing 42 minutes at the beginning and it jumps from 5:08 PM to 5:50 PM, correct?

• 2:08:35Speaker 07

  Jackson.

• 2:08:36Speaker 05

  Sustained.

• 2:08:37Speaker 03

  Wow.

• 2:08:38Speaker 02

  Have you reviewed the video?

• 2:08:39Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:08:40Speaker 02

  Did you see that the timestamp jumped from 5:08 to 5:50?

• 2:08:45Speaker 07

  Jackson.

• 2:08:45Speaker 05

  Sustained.

• 2:08:46Speaker 02

  Did you note that the time jumped from 5:08 to about 5:50 at the beginning of the video?

• 2:08:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, I observed a jump in video.

• 2:08:58Speaker 02

  And that was about 42 minutes, correct?

• 2:09:00Speaker 03

  Approximately, yes.

• 2:09:01Speaker 02

  You're aware that there's another video from the interior of that Sallyport as well, correct?

• 2:09:05Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:09:06Speaker 02

  The second video from the interior of the Sallyport.

• 2:09:11Speaker 02

  Is inverted.

• 2:09:12Derrick Levasseur?

  Mm hmm.

• 2:09:12Speaker 02

  Right?

• 2:09:13Derrick Levasseur?

  Yes.

• 2:09:13Speaker 02

  You're now aware of that.

• 2:09:15Derrick Levasseur?

  I am.

• 2:09:15Stephanie Harlowe?

  So, yeah, these are obviously the main issues, the conflicts, um, the whole Sally Port at the Canton Police Department. That's a cluster. Um, and, and once again, there's just, there's no way to actually know what was just, you know, normal run of the mill, hey, this happened because sometimes these things happen in investigations, or what was nefariously done. There's just no way to tell the difference and that's kind of where we're at.

• 2:09:43Derrick Levasseur?

  I have an unrelated question regarding Brian Higgins. What is the, from what, and maybe I'm dismissing it, but he seems to have been having some type of extracurricular relationship with Karen, right? Maybe kissing, flirting, whatever, whatever it was.

• 2:09:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  So they had exchanged texts and, uh, and according to him, they had shared, uh, a covert kiss, yes.

• 2:10:06Derrick Levasseur?

  Okay. So what would be his motive for implicating her in the crime?

• 2:10:11Stephanie Harlowe?

  So what, and we're going to talk about this, um, next episode, which is the last one. But the defense is going to raise several possibilities for what happened to John O'Keefe.

• 2:10:21Derrick Levasseur?

  Which by the way, that's what they're supposed to do. I don't blame them for that. They don't need to, you know, pin down one.

• 2:10:26Stephanie Harlowe?

  They're going to raise several, uh, theories that they have about what could have happened to John O'Keefe that does not include Karen Reed hitting him, right?

• 2:10:32Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah. They didn't include that one?

• 2:10:34Stephanie Harlowe?

  No, no.

• 2:10:34Derrick Levasseur?

  Okay.

• 2:10:35Stephanie Harlowe?

  So, uh, one of them is that he was beat up inside the house, right? And they're going to bring up the fact that Colin Albert had, you know, previous issues with John. Colin Albert was an athlete. He was a boxer. He's got his knuckles all scraped up in the aftermath of John O'Keefe's death. They're also going to bring up the fact that, uh, Brian Higgins, ATF agent, had a little crush on Karen. And that night, when they were all out together, even though, Karen and Brian Higgins didn't like interact while everyone else was around. Brian Higgins sent her a text message saying something like, so dot, dot, dot. Kind of like, you know, what's up with us, girl? Right? And then they all go to the Albert home.

• 2:11:19Stephanie Harlowe?

  And once there, Brian Higgins is one of the people who's texting and calling John O'Keefe. Like, where are you? Come on, why aren't you here yet? So the, the defense is going to say like, was Brian Higgins trying to lure John O'Keefe there so that they could beat him up so that he could have Karen? Or was this a thing where Brian Higgins had texted or called John O'Keefe after they left, all they all left the bars? And Brian Higgins is kind of like drunk and pissed. And he's like, this bitch is ignoring me. We've texted back and forth. We've had a kiss and she's just going to sit here and act like nothing happened. I'm going to tell John what happened. And now maybe in one of these texts or calls, because we have no idea what these texts

• 2:12:02Stephanie Harlowe?

  or calls said, because Brian Higgins threw away his phone on a military base. Maybe he said that. And then maybe this is why John and Karen start arguing in the car. Right? So that's kind of the, the line of, of theories that the defense is going to put forward. But we'll go deeper into that. And then Chloe comes in, Chloe the dog comes in. Yeah.

• 2:12:23Derrick Levasseur?

  A lot of these theories revolve around John being in some type of physical altercation. Right? He's got a, he got the injury somehow. So what are the people in that camp as far as the physical altercation? Or maybe just the defense? What is their pushback or their defense to the medical examiner's office saying that? And I have the quote here, so hold on. The quote being, the doctor stating that there were no signs of Mr. O'Keefe being involved in any type of physical altercation or fight. What's, what's their, what's their response to that as far as the doctors? Observations and analysis.

• 2:12:58Stephanie Harlowe?

  Under questioning, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy did admit like, yes, some of these, uh, some of these injuries could have been sustained from a fist and we did cover that already last episode.

• 2:13:07Derrick Levasseur?

  Yeah, I know, I know we covered it, but I'm saying, what do they see to that?

• 2:13:10Stephanie Harlowe?

  Could have been sustained from him getting hit and then falling and he could have gotten that blunt force trauma. And the medical investigator also said like, yeah, uh, getting hit by a car, you would expect to see like broken bones or something like that. So.

• 2:13:24Derrick Levasseur?

  Could, yeah.

• 2:13:25Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah. I mean, once again, this is going to be one expert, the medical examiner on the stand, questioned by the prosecution selectively. And she's going to answer based on the questions she's being asked. And then when the defense gets up there, they are also going to ask questions selectively.

• 2:13:39Derrick Levasseur?

  Of course.

• 2:13:40Stephanie Harlowe?

  Hey.

• 2:13:40Derrick Levasseur?

  It's every expert.

• 2:13:41Stephanie Harlowe?

  Is it possible that these injuries that you said were sustained this way could have also been sustained this way? Yes, that's possible. So not like, like you said, we're, we're, we're right back where we started.

• 2:13:50Derrick Levasseur?

  It's, it's a, it's a vicious circle. It'll never end. And that's the one thing. And I know we're going to wrap it up next episode, but as far as this trial, do I think it should go to trial again? No. But it is the, it is one thing that I'm interested in seeing what the, what new experts are brought in, what's the narratives that are being presented because the defense is going to be better and the prosecution's going to be better. They better be better. Um, cause their first time around, they were horrible. Um, but I will be intrigued to tune into that trial and see that now that everyone kind of has a little bit of understanding of the direction the other side's going to go, what type of countermeasures are going to be taken as far as experts? Because this is

• 2:14:32Derrick Levasseur?

  a battle of experts for sure. It's, it's all it is. It's interpretation of the evidence. What do you believe? And then if there is evidence that's incriminating, then it's going to revert back to the way that evidence was obtained. Uh, but the Higgins thing is interesting to me because on the surface, based on what we know, it seems like he'd be more pro Karen Reed and want to see her come out of this unscathed. But if to your theory or their theory, I should say, he was mad at her when this happened, then that would explain it. That would explain it.

• 2:15:02Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah. Yep.

• 2:15:03Derrick Levasseur?

  Last name and stuff. This case, it's a. Interesting and also demoralizing at the same time because you know you're not going to get a lot out of it. Whatever point is made, there always will be a counterpoint. And I mean that on both sides. No matter what is said in this trial, depending on what side you fall on, there will be a counter expert to combat that argument. And I see it a lot in the comments and you can see it there. And the worst part about it is both sides do make valid points. Like you're reading, you're like, huh, that does make sense. And then you'll read the other side and you're like, oh yeah, but that makes sense too. So, and then the biggest problem, to wrap it up, my final words, is it all comes back to the source. And whenever the source is Proctor, it's hard to believe

• 2:15:45Derrick Levasseur?

  it. That's, that's the problem. Whenever you, whenever you rely on Proctor to make your argument, or anything he's involved in, it's, it's, it's, that's a tough one, that's a tough one to sell.

• 2:15:56Stephanie Harlowe?

  Yeah, it's a tough pill to swallow. And as we had mentioned in Crime Weekly News, we are off next week for the Christmas holiday. But when we return, we will wrap up this case. And then the week after that, we'll be starting a new one. So, let's continue the ride and we'll see where it takes us.

• 2:16:10Derrick Levasseur?

  And yeah, and Merry Christmas on that note, for anybody who celebrates Christmas or happy holidays. But, uh, yeah, no, we, we hope everyone enjoys it with their family. And thank you for joining us for this ride. It'll be a nice break for us to kind of hang out and catch up with the families and we'll be back strong with the final episode and take that into the new year. Can't wait. Oh, and by the way, ground coffee, peppermint bark, sold out in 12 hours. I had mentioned it in Crime Weekly News. Sold out in 12 hours. Got more coming. Thank you for the love and support. Hope you enjoy the coffee. And if you do, besides weighing in down below about John O'Keefe and Karen Reed, let us know if you like the coffee. And on a positive note.

• 2:16:48Stephanie Harlowe?

  You will like the coffee. It's great.

• 2:16:50Derrick Levasseur?

  Christmas trees in the comment section if you made it to the end of the video.

• 2:16:53Stephanie Harlowe?

  Thank you guys so much.

• 2:16:55Derrick Levasseur?

  Everyone stay safe.

• 2:16:56Stephanie Harlowe?

  See you soon. Bye.