Legally Brunette: “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read”

Emily and Shane are discussing the latest docuseries surrounding the Karen Read case. Read and her legal team participated in this series to show the behind-the-scenes of her trial and why they’re convinced that the John O’Keefe murder is all a big police cover-up… 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Vernette. I'll
be your host today Emily Sempson with my co host Shane,
Just Shane. We're going to first start off with a
little update of Menindez because there's been a lot going
on in the press with that. We also have a
little update on Ruby Frankie, just because we like to
all the cases that we've talked about. We definitely like

(00:23):
to go back if there's been any changes in anything
and discuss that. And then all of you, not all
of you, but a lot of you have been asking
can you please do a breakdown of Karen Reid. So
we will get into that and I assume that's going
to be a lengthy conversation. So anyway, let's start with Menendez.
First of all, there was a hearing on Friday, and

(00:45):
this was not the actual resentencing hearing. This was the
DA Aachman actually trying to withdrawal the DA's original bid
for them to be recent. So does that make sense
to you? Do you understand what I'm trying.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, he's trying to take back the motion for plus
for recensing.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Right, So the original motion was filed with the former
DA who was more progressive and he felt like they
should be resentenced and that they had served enough time.
So now Hawkman is saying, wait a minute, we don't
support it anymore. We have a new da, we have
a new view on the whole thing. We don't want
them to be allowed to go before the judge and

(01:26):
have a possible resentencing. So this hearing on Friday was
basically the judge determining whether the resentencing hearing will go forward,
and Judge Jessic after hearing both sides decided that the
resentencing will go forward. So now it is scheduled for
April seventeenth and eighteenth.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
So on that day, yeah, should we learn should we
learn anything? Or is it going to just be another
continued date?

Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay, that is a great past.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
What's going to take place on that day?

Speaker 1 (01:55):
Right? So basically both sides are going to argue, and
Hawkman is going to argue that their liars, that they
lied about the abuse that they're in they should stay
in prison. And then obviously the defense is going to
argue that they've been at prison long enough, it's been
thirty five years, they're supported by their family, and that
they've been rehabilitated and that's the big thing with the resentencing.
It's about rehabilitation.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
So it's not about it's not about whether the punishment
fit the crime. It's where are they now, right and
have they kind of been rehabilitated, as you just said,
to be able to go back out into society. So
it's not a matter of was it too harsh of
a punishment? View? Right?

Speaker 3 (02:34):
Right?

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Right?

Speaker 3 (02:35):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Yeah, And so as far as a decision, I asked
Alex who is one of the Mendez's defense attorneys. She's
been on the podcast before, and I said, is it
possible that Judge Jessic makes a decision that day during
the hearings or would he go back and take it
under advisement and think about it and then issue a
decision later. And she said that he's one of those

(02:57):
judges that does make decisions from the bench, so it
is possible that he could decide the resentencing fate on
those days.

Speaker 3 (03:06):
Oh wow, So wait when's it? What's the date.

Speaker 1 (03:10):
April seventeenth and eighteenth?

Speaker 3 (03:11):
Where you going to go?

Speaker 1 (03:14):
If I could get an invite, I would go. Maybe
I can make that happen. During the hearing, the prosecution
presented graphic crime scene images, which sparked outrage from defense
attorney Mark Gerragos. He accused the District Attorney's office of
re traumatizing the Menindaz family for political purposes. So apparently,

(03:34):
this presentation lasted nearly three hours, and prosecutors argued that
the brothers still hunker down in their bunker of lies
and deception, showing no this.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
Is where well okay, but then why are they showing
graphic images and stuff. They're just going for shock value
to try to turn away people that think they should
be released.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
I think that the prosecution is focusing on the brendousness
and the violence of the crime so that they can
take away from whether they've been rehabilitated or not, Like
we need to focus on how long they've been in prison,
what they've done in prison, their prison record, and if
they've been rehabilitated. But among the family that was at

(04:19):
this hearing was Terry Burrell, who is the sister of
Jose Menendez. She was speaking out for the first time
in decades. She usually doesn't speak. She's battling cancer. She
says that that the Meninda's brothers, they are like the
boys that I didn't have. She's battling colon cancer currently
and said she's worried that she won't live long enough
to see her nephew's freed. She tries to go and

(04:40):
see them as much as she can, but it's hard
because she lives in New Jersey and she's also eighty five.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
But those are reasons to let them out either, right,
well as an unfortunate scenario. But that's not a reason
to let someone out because a relative of some sort
may not live long enough to see them.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
No, I don't think that's I don't think her age
is something that should be taken into consideration. I think
what they take into consideration is that all the remaining
family members, I think there's like fourteen or something, all
think that they should be released.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
Right all she were just talking about how they were
sharing the story of for finding cancer in her age
and not being able to see them.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
Well, basically I was talking about her because there was
a TMC article that just came out recently that she
had to be hospitalized after this hearing because of the
shock of them showing graphic photos of the crime scene.
And under Marcy's law, apparently you're supposed to be warned
if there's going to be graphic crime scene images shown.
There was no warning.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
Okay, So again, her having colon cancer and her age
has nothing to do with what the judge should take
into consideration for resentencing.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
No it's not. But I'm just telling you about her
because she claims that the reason or the family claims
that the reason that she ended up hospitalized was because
the prosecution did not form than that they were going
to show shocking crime scene, very graphic images of jose
and Kitty. According to the Justice for Eric and Lyle coalition,

(06:10):
this aunt, Terry Burult, was found unresponsive in her hotel
room after attending the recent court hearing where graphic crime
scene images were shown without prior warning. So that's where
we're at with men Indez. So obviously we will keep
you updated on Menindez. They are going to have the
actual resentencing hearings, so we will have to actually we
will follow that and.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
See you should go to the hearing. I could do
a live podcast from the factual workhouse house.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
Okay, I don't know if.

Speaker 3 (06:37):
They would let me get on that, all right, we
know how it goes.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
That's like because they don't have anything else to do,
all right, let's do a little update on the Ruby
Frankie case. Jody Hildebrandt challenges the high profile child abuse conviction.
This was an ABC article in twenty twenty three. Jody
Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse
alongside Ruby Frankie. Frankie both accepted plea deals and were

(07:02):
sentenced to up to thirty years in prison. At that time,
Jody Hillebrant said one of the reasons she didn't want
to go to trial was to protect the children from
having to emotionally relive the trauma. I like how this
woman was involved in amusing these children within her own home, right,
So she clearly was a part of what was going on,

(07:22):
and then all of a sudden, she's sensitive, She's sensitive
to their needs and she doesn't want to abuse them
any further.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
She didn't want it to be public and she didn't
want to be outed anymore than she was. Literally, you know,
they're going to make a documentary on her. It was
going to all this raw footage was going to be shown, right,
so jokes on her and.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
The petition which was filed on March twenty fourth, Hildebrett
claims her guilty plea was unlawfully induced and that she
did not fully understand what she was agreeing to. She writes, quote,
I did not know my rights, and my attorney did
not inform me of them. So on one side, she's saying, look,
I just agreed to the because I didn't want to

(08:02):
have the children testify. We didn't want to go to trial.
But now I don't understand my rights and I didn't
know that I was taking a plead deal.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
Yeah, oh I forgot my defense is I'm an idiot.

Speaker 2 (08:12):
I wasn't paying attention now because the judge asks the
defendant directly those questions about the white the rights that they're.

Speaker 3 (08:20):
Waiving, and if they know what.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
They're entering, and they ask them, and that's the time
that the defense or the defendant answers directly, not the attorney.
The defendant answers directly to the judge, which is, you know,
it's not often that the defendant is speaking directly to
the judge, and in this case they are because.

Speaker 3 (08:39):
They want to know. There's no one in between.

Speaker 2 (08:41):
Us, between the judge and the defendant in making this decision, right,
So don't they ask them? Like several things like do
you know your rights? Do you know the penalty involved?
Do you know that it can't be retracted?

Speaker 3 (08:54):
Or whatever? I mean?

Speaker 2 (08:54):
They ask them a handful of questions. Make sure like
you know if you agree to this, you are doomed.
Your fate lies in my hands, and I decide what you.

Speaker 1 (09:03):
Will right now.

Speaker 2 (09:05):
Her kids didn't know what they were in for? Did
she ever think about that? They didn't know their rights?

Speaker 1 (09:09):
What wasn't her kids? She Jody's the duck kids.

Speaker 3 (09:14):
She's the She's the other piece of trash.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
Yes, She's not the mom piece of trash. She's the
the other piece of trash.

Speaker 3 (09:21):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
She argues that her plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily,
and it includes claims that her legal counsel was ineffective,
and that prosecutors failed to properly notify her of the charges,
and that she did not comprehend the consequences when so.
Eric Clark, an attorney for Ruby Frankie, responded in a

(09:42):
statement to ABC News saying that they were not shocked,
but weren't exactly expecting it either. He added, I'm super
confident that the entry of her plea will hold up
and that she won't be able to show that she
knowingly and involuntarily did not enter it. I mean they
have that mean sure they have. I mean they record
the trials and they have the trial transcript. I'm sure

(10:04):
the judge went through, like you said, and asked her
all the questions. So we will see what happens with that.
The court will now the court will have to determine
whether Hildebrand's rights were actually violated in the process, and
if this could justify a do over of her case.
I'm going to go with no. They're going to deny
her emotion and she's going to spend a lot of
time in prison. All right, let's move on to Karen Reid.

(10:29):
I have done a lot of research on Karen Reid lately,
and thank you so many of you. I get so
many dms on Karen Reid. It is a very controversial case,
and as we discussed earlier, we did a very brief
episode on Karen Reid. If you want to go back
and listen to it, I would say it's more comedic
because Shane knew nothing about the case, so all he
does is tell me that she's guilty. I enough that

(10:52):
she's guilty through the entire time, we did a very
brief overview of just allegedly what happened that night. But
now I'm excited that we're going to take.

Speaker 3 (11:01):
A deep dive into Karen Reid, into her.

Speaker 1 (11:03):
First trial, and into a lot of the controversial evidence.
And I will tell you, I think this is such
a hot button case because there really isn't a smoking gun.
There isn't anything. There's not an Aha moment where you say, yes,
it was definitely a cover up or yes, she definitely

(11:25):
did it. I think you can look at all the
evidence and you can weigh it and you can see
both sides. And that's where this is where this case
has become so heated, because you have a very very
tight line drawn in the sand or in the snow
with this case. You've got people that are hardcore supporters

(11:45):
that is a cover up and Karen Reid is innocent,
and you have hardcore supporters that say she backed her
suv into him and killed him that night. And so
we're going.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
To get into it.

Speaker 1 (11:58):
Let's just go into a little summary of what happened.
So if you want to watch, it's on Max. It's
also on the Animal Planet. But it's called a body
in the Snow the Trial of Karen Reid, and it
explores the case through interviews with Karen Reid as well
as her legal team. It also shows a lot of
scenes of the war room. This is where they rented
some conference room or a hotel room or something. And

(12:20):
it's really interesting because it shows the attorneys and Karen
Reid actually discussing the case and witnesses and what they're
going to ask. And you know, there was a lot
of times when I was wondering to myself, is this
docuseries helpful to Karen or is it detrimental? It shows
a lot of her thoughts, It shows her conversations with

(12:44):
her attorneys. It just makes me wonder is this helpful
to her or is this detrimental to her?

Speaker 3 (12:50):
Well? Is it Jeneraly's NACo's never helpful for the dependent
to speak, right? I mean I.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
Don't think so. I mean, here's my opin.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
If you do a good job here and like, oh
there are good liar. If you do a bad job,
it's like, yeah, we knew she was lying.

Speaker 3 (13:03):
I was tough. Yeah, I was just.

Speaker 1 (13:05):
Interested thinking that her legal team and her really allowed
them to put themselves out there and be judged by
the public after this first trial, I will tell you
my thoughts. I don't find Karen Reid very likable. But
that doesn't mean that she's guilty. It just means that
I don't find her very likable. So The Trial of

(13:32):
Karen Reid explores a case through interviews with Karen Reid
as well as her legal team, including her attorneys David
Yanetti and Alan Jackson and Elizabeth little So. Those are
the three key attorneys for Karen Reid. The docu series
progresses chronologically, starting with her arrest and district court arragnement,
following by her indictment on second degree murder charges, and

(13:53):
this was in June of twenty twenty two. It also
covers her trial, which began in April of twenty twenty four.
The series features previously unseen footage, including video of Reed's
arrests related to the murder charge. I will say during
her arrest, I did think it was interesting that she
was very she was very emphatic that she'd be allowed
to change her clothes because she kept talking about how

(14:15):
this is going to be on TV. And I was like,
I can understand that you want to change your clothes.

Speaker 2 (14:20):
You would do that you killed me, you would be
still be getting glam and everything.

Speaker 1 (14:27):
I'd be like, wait, you can't arrest me. I have
so apparently when she was arrested.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
Act if you were getting arrested in any situation, that'd
probably be the team you'd call for.

Speaker 3 (14:37):
CD's your one phone call.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
Now re read to come over into your air so
you look good for your mug shot.

Speaker 1 (14:44):
Well if it's well, I know if I had a bunch.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Shot and you have not denied it once, you have
agreed with everything I've said so far.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
It is what it is, all right, let's talk about
the prosecution and the defense. So, according to prosecutors, Karen
Reid struck John O'Keeffe with her SUV while dropping him
off at a fellow officers home in the early hours
of January twenty ninth, of twenty twenty two. Now the
officer is a sergeant and his name is Brian Albert.

(15:13):
He is a key player in this case, so you
need to remember his name. According to prosecutors, Karen Reid
struck John O'Keeffe with her SUV while dropping him off
at a fellow officer's home. This is thirty four Fairview
Reed's defense team has presented an alternative version of events. Basically,
what the prosecution is saying is that O'Keeffe and Karen
Reid and some friends went out drinking. They had a

(15:35):
lot of drinks. I think she talks about in the
docu series how many drinks she has.

Speaker 3 (15:39):
So she volunteered that information.

Speaker 1 (15:41):
Yes, Then after they go to two bars, they get
invited to a house party at Brian Albert's home. And again,
he's a sergeant in a police department. According to Karen
in this docuseries, she doesn't really know him, and she
doesn't know a lot of people there, so she doesn't
know if they're welcome. So when they drive to the home,

(16:02):
she stops outside the home and she tells John go
into the house and see if we're welcome there. And
she waits in the car and she's like call me
or text me, like let me know if I should
come in.

Speaker 3 (16:14):
That's weird.

Speaker 1 (16:15):
This is where everything goes blurry and dark. And I
don't understand why no one knows what happens within this
like five weeks.

Speaker 3 (16:21):
No people do know what happened. Well, why isn't.

Speaker 1 (16:25):
Why exactly why is it not known that when allegedly
she pulls up to the house and he gets out
of the car to go inside the house. No one
knows if he actually went into the house or if
he got hit by her. And then we just know
later that his body's found in the front yard, laying
in the snow and he's dead. Why does there's no

(16:47):
a house full of cops. There was Brian Higgins was there,
who was an ATF agent, and there was Brian Albert,
who's a cop who owned the house. And I think
those were the only two cops, and then there were
some other There were some other women there, like Jen McCabe,
who is another player in this, and then there were
some other people, and I think there were some teenagers.
But there was a party.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Whether did they look at fingerprints in the house or
DNA in the house, We will.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
Get to that, But I am just my mind is
reeling that no one really knows what happened within that
time frame. Karen Reid claims that she saw John entered
the breezeway door. I think it's suspicious whether she actually
saw him enter the house or not, because I don't
believe that that was initially something that she said. I

(17:35):
think that was something that she said later that she
did see him enter the house.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
Oh, like, I mean there were Initially she just said
I dropped him off. I believe she dropped off and
drove away. And now she's saying no, I saw him
going right.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
And now everyone within the house claims that he never
entered the house. So here we are with these conflicting stories.
So Reech's defense team has presented an alternative version of events.
They suggest that O'Keefe entered the residents at thirty four
Fairview Road where a gathering was taking place, and that
he may have been assaulted inside the home, possibly even

(18:08):
attacked by a dog, before ultimately being found unresponsive outside
in the snow. So the defense is claiming that this
is a cover up, that John did enter the home,
and that there was some type of altercation maybe between
Brian Higgins, who was an ATF agent, and John O'Keefe,
because previously there was some flirty sexy text going on

(18:32):
between Brian Higgins, this ATF agent, and Karen Reid while
she was dating John O'Keefe. Oh my gosh. First of all,
I had to watch the scene like the testimony of
him reading all the texts between the two of them,
and I was so uncomfortable.

Speaker 3 (18:48):
Why was he reading them?

Speaker 1 (18:49):
Because when he was on the stand, the defense attorney,
when he was cross examining him, had him pull.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
Up, had this check on this screen come from him.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
They wanted him to be uncomfortable.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
And it was so uncomfortable.

Speaker 1 (19:05):
Do you like me? I like you? I think you're hot.
I thought you were hot from Jump. I mean, first
of all, it sounded so juvenile that these are like
forty year olds.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Like Animel's text, Yah heard probably the same content.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
It's like you're hot? Do you think I'm hot?

Speaker 3 (19:21):
I think you're Wasn't there anything juicy in it?

Speaker 2 (19:23):
No, that was it.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
I was just like you look good.

Speaker 1 (19:26):
Yeah, but it was really uncomfortable.

Speaker 3 (19:28):
It just sounded I don't thought there'd be something more.

Speaker 1 (19:30):
Oh you wanted, like like what did juicy juicy?

Speaker 2 (19:34):
I mean, I guess they weren't that juicy. They were
just embarrassed. I like you, I like you, I like you.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
Yeah, I liked you from Jump. I don't even know
what that What does that mean?

Speaker 2 (19:43):
And she goes from jump Whim's jump and I don't
know our totally sigma is that I.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
Don't know it's jump.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
I don't know anyway, all right, when I was a kid,
it was just cool, awesome and like rat like were
the slang words.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
You didn't say that you liked a girl from jump? No, okay,
so anyway I want to jumper. Yeah, I can't imagine
that you said that. So here we have two competing
theories of what actually happened that evening. So we have
the prosecution claiming that Karen Reid was drunk, that she
and John were fighting because they did have some texts

(20:21):
earlier in the day where they were like not getting along,
they were arguing with each other.

Speaker 3 (20:25):
That she pulls up where they're texting just.

Speaker 1 (20:28):
She's she's always like accusing him of like having affairs
with other women, and I think they just had a
tumultuous relationship.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
Was there anything like relevant, like like and ready over
and there was no smoking gun in front of someone's else, There.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
Was nothing like that. So basically the prosecution is claiming
that Karen Reid pulls up to thirty four fair View,
this is around twelve thirty, that John gets out of
the car, and that there was some argument or something
going on between the two of them, and that Karen
does a three point turn and within her doing that,
she backs over him and that he ends up laying

(21:07):
on the lawn dead.

Speaker 3 (21:10):
She claims, Wait, she's drunk too, right.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
She's drunk. He's drunk, She's drunk. He actually is carrying
a cocktail glass with a drink in his hand as
he's leaving the car like he brought it had a
ROADI yeah, with him, and that glass is found at
the scene around him, around the body. There's a cocktail
glass broken at the scene.

Speaker 3 (21:33):
Can I just say this is why drinking stupid? Sorry
it is, no.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
I mean, they have all these professionals that have no
idea what's going on or covering it up or whatever,
and someone's dead.

Speaker 3 (21:45):
Stupid. Okay, but let's talk about it.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
Let's just talk about the cocktail glass for a second,
because I never actually put this together until I just
said it. But if if, what the defense claims is
that he was killed inside the house and then he
was like drug out onto.

Speaker 2 (21:59):
The lawn to make it look like hes for a
next home.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
They also take your cocktail glass too, he threw it out? Right, then,
how is the cocktail glass that he was carrying now
broken and around his body? Unless he carried the cocktail
glass into the house, got in an altercation. Apparently the
dog attacked him. Then they take him out onto the
lawn and they're like, be sure to get the pieces
of that cocktail glass and put those around the body

(22:26):
so that when we lie and say that Karen reads.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
Very sophisticated killers.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
I mean, if there's just a lot.

Speaker 2 (22:33):
Maybe he went in with the cocktail. They said you
can't bring your own drinks or you're too drunk, and
he said, not unmuch? Is you going to cry it
for my.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
Cold dead hands?

Speaker 2 (22:43):
And there was a fight then ensued, and it resulted
in him being dead outside.

Speaker 3 (22:47):
With the cocktail.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
I like, I'm sure we're barely touching the surface of
this case, and you have already come up with alternative theories,
so I'm trying to solve it, all right, So anyway,
here we go. Let's get back to his injuries. And
his injuries are very suspect as well. Now he has
blunt force trauma to his head.

Speaker 3 (23:09):
He also has cold and that could not have been
from the car. Is that determined?

Speaker 1 (23:14):
Well? I know that there was testimony from a medical
examiner saying yes, it could be consistent. And then there's
other people that were like, oh, it's not really consistent.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
So it's not one way.

Speaker 1 (23:23):
No, no, But here's my question. If he has blunt
forced trauma to his head and he's a tall guy
two hundred pounds six to two or something like that,
to me, yes, exact say build his shame. Yes, So
how does he get blunt forced trauma to his head
from an.

Speaker 2 (23:39):
Suv if she backed Because I don't know this, but
he could have if if she ran into him, he
could have hit his head on the trunk.

Speaker 3 (23:47):
He could have hit his head on the ground or on.

Speaker 1 (23:49):
This or on the curve or something I guess. So
you're saying she could have backed end to him and
the force could have been so forceful that he flies
backwards and he hits his head and then he gets played.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
And it's like, well, does he have any other damage
type of parts of his body?

Speaker 1 (24:02):
Yes, So his arm, this is this is where the
defense really comes in. His arm has a lot of
like it looks like scratches and lacerations and puncture wounds.
And now there was another person, an expert witness, that
testified that those injuries were consistent with a dog.

Speaker 3 (24:20):
With one arm or one arm on his.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
Arm, just one arm. I believe it was his right arm.

Speaker 3 (24:27):
Which is kind of if he's right handed, you'd be
using as defense.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
And you know, I looked at here's a picture of
it if you want to look, and I'll tell you.
I have three dogs and I've seen a dog bite
and they do the teeth do puncture like.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
It looks like he scratches from a dog.

Speaker 1 (24:43):
He said, Well, they said it was. It was consistent.
The expert witness that apparently was an expert in dog
bites said that it looked like scratches and puncture wounds
from like K ninety.

Speaker 3 (24:55):
So so what was your point?

Speaker 1 (24:57):
Well, my point is is that Brian Album, who lives
at thirty four Fair of View, where apparently Karen Reid
saw John O'Keeffe go into the house, owned a German
shepherd named Chloe who apparently had a propensity to bite
and was aggressive. And now we have John O'Keeffe in
his front yard with a cocktail glass with wounds that

(25:18):
looks similar to a dog attack on one arm. The
dog was also rehomed after this happened. So I don't know,
but Chloe does.

Speaker 3 (25:28):
Not live with his protection.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Yes, Chloe is in the witness No, the dog witness
protection programs.

Speaker 2 (25:35):
I guess.

Speaker 1 (25:36):
So there's that, So keep that in the back of
your mind as we go through the evidence. Apparently, let's
just do a little more detailed into his actual injuries.
He had traumatic brain injury. O'Keefe had a skull fracture
and brain bleed. He had facial injuries, cuts, bruises and
abrations on his face, and he had rib fractures, multiple
ribs to fractures.

Speaker 3 (25:57):
Sounds like.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
That.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
Sounds like you got hit by a car. It's not
like a dog attack.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Well, I think with the dog theory, it's that.

Speaker 3 (26:07):
I mean, it is questionable why there's scratches like that.

Speaker 1 (26:09):
But here's the thing with the dog theory, and I
understand that they're saying that if he did the defense
is claiming he entered the house and he got into
altercation with the men, right, and that there was a
fight the dog and the dog got involved because you know, Togo,
we have a German shepherd. If I got in a
fistfight with someone, my dog's gonna jump in. There's no
doubt about that.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
I don't know, I know, And so the dog is
scared of trash cans.

Speaker 3 (26:32):
What else is he scared of? Something else? Like all
burglar has to do and come in our house is
bring a trash can.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
Well, it would have to be a run. He doesn't
like the big trash cans, the street trash cans, he's
not scared of, like wastebaskets.

Speaker 3 (26:44):
Yeah, he's tough. He can handle the waist basket, he is.

Speaker 1 (26:47):
Anyway, O'Keefe had bite marks and scratches on his arm,
and there were lacerations on his head and body.

Speaker 3 (26:54):
Well, this all sounds like reasonable doubt. Really, are you
doubting that? I said there's doubt?

Speaker 1 (27:03):
No, I agree with you.

Speaker 2 (27:04):
I mean at the end, by the time we yes,
I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. I'm
saying it's all circumstantial. It seems to walk a very
fine line. It's like on the fence, you could.

Speaker 3 (27:14):
Go either way.

Speaker 2 (27:15):
That's why this case. And so that's reasonable doubt. And
if it's reasonable doubt, it's a legal standard. It's not
a moral standard or a hunch or whether she did
or didn't do it.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
It's whether legally there's enough and there isn't enough so far, okay, So.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
Crash reconstruction specialists previously testified in her first trial that
O'Keefe's had injuries did not align with trauma typically seen
in pedestrian vehicle collisions, and that the condition of Read's
vehicle did not match the damage. More expect this.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
Is not a typically seen Okay, well maybe this is
a different situation.

Speaker 1 (27:50):
Additionally, a retired er doctor and forensic pathologists who this
is a person that was an expert in dog bites,
testified for the defense, suggesting that some of them Keey's injuries,
particularly those to his arm, were more consistent with a
possible dog attack. Now, I will tell you, and in
the trial they tested, they did DNA testing for dog

(28:12):
dna and there was no dog DNA found, but they
found pig dna. Now, when they said that and I
was watching and they said pig dna, the first thing
I thought of was, well, dog treats are a lot
of times pig ears and made of pig. So maybe
the pig DNA came from the dog's mouth. But the dog,

(28:33):
I don't know, I had a dog treat or something.
I don't know. It's just there's no dog DNA found.
There's pig dna.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
That's unusual. There's there's no pigs in the vicinity, not
that I have no, Well, I don't know. It was
a pig farm near fair View Lane or whatever.

Speaker 1 (28:48):
Thirty four fair of View.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
You keep doing these people, you keep you want somebody
to go out there.

Speaker 1 (28:52):
And no, I just love the address because they say
it over and over. It's all like what went down
at thirty four fair View. Well, Brian Albert has told
the house since then, and apparently yeah, and he rehomed
his dog. He rehomed the dog, sold the house, and
apparently he redid the basement floors right right after this
incident as well. But apparently he had already redout the

(29:13):
basement floors in twenty eighteen and then he redid the bastion.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
Were there any suspicious deaths in twenty eighteen on this
fair View lay, No suspicions.

Speaker 3 (29:22):
You know that there might be redid the basement?

Speaker 1 (29:25):
Well no, I think he originally redid the basement because
the basement needed to be redone.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
And then he read you're saying he already he just
did it. Why is he doing it again? I was thinking,
probably does it every time he killed someone in his house. No, Okay,
I think he also rehome a dog in twenty eighteen.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Maybe, but he did redo the basement flooring in twenty eighteen,
and then someone like a contractor came forward and said
that he redid the basement flooring again in twenty twenty
two after this incident occurred. And also one more thing,
there was never any investigation done inside of this house.
They did not do any fingerprinting. They did not look

(30:02):
for any blood. They did not look for DNA that
would have.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
Answered a lot of questions one way or another, right,
I mean, really the main they found no DNA of
his in the house that would have said something, right,
found some DNA depending on where it was, or fingerprints
that would say something exactly.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
But I'm telling you didn't.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Have ring footage. No, there's no ring footage out.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
They have cameras on the four fair View that I
don't know about, but there is no footage that I
have seen anywhere. There is a lot of footage of
Karen Reid pulling into John O'Keeffe's house. There's ring footage
of her SUV at his home.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
Whose footage is that his?

Speaker 1 (30:37):
At she goes after she drops him off, She goes
to his house. The biggest question in this case, if
you had to boil this case down to one question,
it would be whether or not John O'Keeffe actually entered
the house that night.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
You're saying one question that, Yeah, you're right, that's a
question that would then answer a lot of other questions, right,
because their claim that he never came to the house, right,
it would support her claim that he.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
Did enter the house.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
Right.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
And then now it's kind of like the burden lightly
speaking to burdens on them to explain what happened he
went in the house.

Speaker 1 (31:12):
Now telephone right, And as far as I know, I
don't believe he had ever visited that home before. That
was his first time being there. So I'm saying, why
was that inside of this home not investigated? Why were fingerprints?
Why did they not look for blood? Why did they
not exactly? And that's the that's exactly, and that's the
argument as to why this is a cover up and

(31:33):
not just a basic hit and run. Let's get to
the broken tail light. The broken tail light is another.

Speaker 3 (31:47):
Thing that just like okay, the brooktail it's on her car.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
Yeah, there's a lot with this bourbon tail light. I
gotta break this down. Reed's defense team has offered an
explanation for the damage to her sub's tail light, suggesting
it may have occurred she accidentally backed into O'Keefe's vehicle
while leaving to search for him on January twenty ninth,
So after she leaves the scene, she goes to John
O'Keefe's house and goes to sleep at his house. She

(32:10):
also calls him like fifty times or something and leaves
voicemails screaming at him, calling him a pervert.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
Which is a little well, I doesn't say why she
leave voicemails that textes people on new voicemails so much more.
But I guess she was so angry she'd wanted to
scream at him.

Speaker 1 (32:25):
But here's the thing. If she hit him and ran
over him and then she goes to his house, was
she and she's drunk? Did she? Was? She really like
a criminal mastermind that she's like, now I'm going to
call him fifty times and scream at him and call
him a pervert.

Speaker 3 (32:44):
She have any other phone?

Speaker 2 (32:45):
Calls her text during this time like like do you
still like me?

Speaker 1 (32:49):
No, Tim Brian Higgins, not that I know of, But
it's basically her leaving.

Speaker 3 (32:53):
Lots of voicemails, single mouth, do you still like me?
Like you she should say anything like that.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
No, she didn't claim to be single yet. No, all
right there, okay, So there's ring camera footage that shows
Red hitting his vehicle and the same spot her headlight.
Her tail light is broken. So there's ring footage that
shows her backing her suv out and she backs her
suv into John O'Keefe's suv. His sub's parked like this.
She backs out and hits it like this, and you

(33:17):
can see his car rocking.

Speaker 3 (33:19):
I don't see contact.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
It looks like there's contact made. You can see the
car till a little bit his car, so.

Speaker 3 (33:27):
It looks like it's his car rocking.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
His car's rocking. So apparently she backs out of his garage.
This is to go look for him because he does has.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
To come home because he's and Yeah, so she calls
him fifty times and yells and screens at him.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
Yeah, and she's worried that he's not home.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
Well, she calls and screams at him because she thinks
she This is where her phone calls and her voicemails
to him. I think are good evidence for the defense,
even though the prosecutors like to use it to show
that they have a volatile relationship. But if you look
at the timing, she's calling him and leaving these crazy
voicemails after he's already dead and he's in the yard.

(34:04):
Apparently this is after she's driven away from from Brian
Albert's home. So if she's calling him and screaming at
him and accusing him of having an affair with some
woman inside the house and that's why he never came
back out to me, that shows her men's reea that
she thinks that he's inside the house having an affair
with with a woman, and that's why he's not answering.

(34:28):
I you know, I understand, I understand that. But her voicemails,
I mean, if she's if.

Speaker 3 (34:34):
She's usually those calls are more like he maybe, where.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Are you right? I saw you walk into Brian O'Keefe's
house right now and you're not coming.

Speaker 3 (34:43):
Yeah, you went to the side porche.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
What's that call? Where are you right? But she's not.
She's saying I and hate you, John, I hate you.
You're a pervert? John? Are you effing that girl? John?
So to me. It's just it's her mental state that
she thinks he's inside the house having an affair with
some woman, and that's why he's not responding to her.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Why would she drop him off at a house where
she thinks he's gonna have an affair because he was
supposed to.

Speaker 1 (35:07):
Come back out and tell her if she was welcome
to come in or not, and he never could wait
she wait, I think she'll like wait in like five minutes.

Speaker 3 (35:13):
It wasn't very long.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
The timeline is very short from when she pulled up.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
Well, the timeline that she no, I'll tell.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
You there's a timeline because they have a cell phone
data of his phone being at thirty four Fairview when
they pull up, and.

Speaker 3 (35:30):
Then that time's not really disputed.

Speaker 1 (35:32):
Then right, No, I'll tell you. I actually, okay, here's
the timeline. It's this is very short. Twelve twenty four.
She arrives at thirty four Fairview twelve thirty six. Karen
reads her phone connects to John O'Keefe's WiFi. John O'Keefe is,
that's his house. So she drops him off at twelve
twenty four and she's back at his house by twelve

(35:54):
thirty six. I can't do math. But that's not a
very long time. What is that called minutes? So there's
only a twelve minute time period between the times she
drops him off and that she arrives back at his house.
She arrives at his house at twelve thirty six. At
twelve thirty seven, she sent to her first crazy voicemail saying, John,
I effing hate you. So this timeframe of her dropping

(36:18):
him off, thinking he goes in the house, and then
allegedly running over him, and then driving back to his
house is twelve minutes. So it's a really short time period. Anyway,
Let's get back to the tail light. So the defense
claims that she backed into his car. That's where her
tail light was damaged. The thing is there were forty
something pieces of tail light found around his body, but

(36:41):
the tail light pieces were found during a second search,
not the initial search.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
Yeah, after the first search when they sprinkled some tight Okay, so.

Speaker 3 (36:51):
Let's go free size. They're like, come back in search.

Speaker 1 (36:55):
So they find his body on the lawn at six
o'clock in the morning and the police come and they
use a snow blower to clear away the snow because
there was a blizzard.

Speaker 3 (37:07):
That night.

Speaker 1 (37:07):
This is another problem is the weather that night. So
as they're blowing away the snow and they're recovering the body,
there's no tail light pieces found none. Then a search
team goes back hours later after her car has been
confiscated by police and taken into police custody. Then when

(37:31):
a second search team goes back to search the yard
and the crime area, they find forty something pieces of
tail light. So basically you have to think, Okay, when
they found his body originally in the snow at six o'clock.

Speaker 3 (37:44):
In the morning, provided I didn't find it the first time.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
The beau of the snow, but they had a snowblower
and they were blowing.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
There's forty pieces and they didn't find one, not one,
not one.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
But when they go back and search later they find
forty something pieces.

Speaker 3 (38:01):
I'd say air on the side of caution and put
them on jail.

Speaker 1 (38:05):
Everybody, just everyone involved.

Speaker 3 (38:08):
You're all crooked one way or another.

Speaker 1 (38:10):
Yeah, But let me ask you because.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
You're I mean, I'm saying that lightly. Of course, I
don't mean that.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
Sort of You've been in a lot of car crashes.

Speaker 3 (38:20):
Namely with you as the driver.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
Yes, here's my question. If she backed into him and
hit him with the tail light, wouldn't break into forty
something pieces.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
I feel like that that you've backed into my car.

Speaker 3 (38:39):
There were no tail eye pieces, just a lot of
damage to my car.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
Right, But I followed by Emily running the house screaming
at me that it was my fault.

Speaker 3 (38:49):
I parked a car. It was, yeah, excuse me for
parking in the driveway, Emily anyway, she says. Then you
say I.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
Didn't see your car really because you have you have
beepers and cameras and mirrors and.

Speaker 3 (39:06):
The sun shining on my car and you didn't see it.

Speaker 1 (39:10):
Okay, back to Karen Reid.

Speaker 3 (39:12):
You're like, I didn't die that day. If I died
that day would be very questionable. Did she back into him?
What was the motive?

Speaker 1 (39:17):
Okay again, I'm just asking do you think if you
backed into someone and you hit them, would your tail
light have forty pieces different broken pieces? To me, that
seems like over like. I just I don't feel like
a tail light breaks into that many pieces, just like you.

Speaker 3 (39:37):
No, I when you said forty that didn't sound realistic.

Speaker 1 (39:39):
It doesn't sound realistic at all.

Speaker 3 (39:41):
If she did it was this freaking tail.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
Well, and how that's like a tail light explode. Now
you know when it sounds that many.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
Pieces And I certainly don't know this, but just as
the lad person, this is what it sounds like.

Speaker 3 (39:52):
They took a tail light, smashed it with a hammer.

Speaker 2 (39:55):
Yes, that's what, and then carried it over and sprinkled
it around. They did snap the tail light or or
bust it. They smashed it with a hammer and then
used all the pieces and threw it there.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
That's what it feels like.

Speaker 2 (40:09):
Many days apart was the first, not finding the tail
light to the time they fell it was. It was
the same day.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
So basically they found his body at six am. So
the police come, they mark off a crime scene. They
used the snowblower. They found blood at the scene. They
put the blood in solo cups. You know those red
solo cups. That's what they put the blood evidence in.
They and they put that inside a grocery bag.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
It's funny that the house of Drunks had a bunch
of solo sandy.

Speaker 1 (40:37):
No, it was the cops. I don't know what they
got the solo cups. I mean, maybe they got it
from the neighbors.

Speaker 2 (40:40):
As police issued solo cups tump aware right solo cups.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
So during that initial finding him and taking him in
the ambulance and using the snowblower on the scene, there
are no tail light pieces found the.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
Cocktail body cams on these cops that arrived the seed.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
I'm guessing not but no, Oh, but there is.

Speaker 1 (41:00):
There's car camp. There's a car cam where you can
see Karen Reid running around screaming John John John Police
stash camp. Yeah, the police stash camp. There's because she's
the one who actually finds the body. So apparently she
wakes up at like four thirty or five or something
in the morning and he still hasn't come home. So
she's freaking out. She calls Jen McCabe.

Speaker 3 (41:22):
Why is she freaking out though she knew she thought
he was sleeping with someone.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
Because he's so I don't know if you will come home.
I'm going to freak out.

Speaker 2 (41:28):
But if you're accusing me of sleeping with someone and
you're sending me fifty messages that I'm sleeping with someone,
then I'll come home and it's like, yeah, because I'm
seeking with someone like that would be your mindset, wouldn't
be like you still have to come home.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
Well, but he has kids at home. I mean, he
didn't come home.

Speaker 3 (41:43):
The whole thing's weird.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
I don't know he did. So he doesn't come home,
and she wakes up and she's at his house and
she realizes that he hasn't come home. She calls Jen McCabe,
who is in the house that night, and then she
calls another woman I don't remember her name, and the
three of them get to a car early in the
morning and drive around looking for John, and then Karen
spots his body and the yard and that's what they

(42:06):
call an ambulance.

Speaker 2 (42:07):
They called where was the body relative to the house
and where she's supposedly dropped him off?

Speaker 1 (42:12):
If you face the house, it's a big front yard
and there's a driveway to the right. His body was
found all the way to the very left of the yard,
in front of a flagpole, so like as far left
on the boundary as you could go.

Speaker 3 (42:24):
All right, terrible investigations, Well, yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
I mean that's part of the that's part of the
defense is that not only was the investigation terrible, but
it does look like a cover up.

Speaker 2 (42:35):
There's a lot of really yeah, but it sure does
look like one right.

Speaker 1 (42:40):
Initial searches by the Camp Police Department did not yield
any tail like pieces around the Albert's front lawn. This
is when they first found the body. However, a subsequent
investigation led by the Massachusetts State Police uncovered approximately six
to seven fragments of red and clear plastic in the
snow near the scene. Later reports and defense arguments have
to just said that up to forty seven pieces were

(43:01):
eventually recovered in the snow. So again, I just the
tail light just bothers me, It bothers me.

Speaker 3 (43:09):
Did they say whether the tail light matched the vehicle?

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (43:12):
They did say, okay, so he correct tail light? Okay,
and then her tail light? Did it if they puzzled,
pieced it back together, did it match up? Did they
do anything like that?

Speaker 3 (43:22):
Yeah they did.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
They also claim, wait, so I did match her tail ight. Yes,
it's her tail light. The question is is her tail
light found in the yard because she hit John O'Keefe
at such a high velocity that her tail light exploded
into forty seven different pieces, or is her tail light
found in the snow because the police confiscated her vehicle

(43:47):
saw that there was a little bit of damage to
her tail light.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
Yeah, and then use that as.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
A cover up, busted the tail light and then when
they went back to search, dropped it into the scene
and then said, oh, look what I found over here.
I found pieces of tail light. The problem though, is
that pieces of the tail light were also found in
his clothing, like.

Speaker 3 (44:13):
Small fragments in his pockets, not in his.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
Pockets, like and it's like his shirt.

Speaker 3 (44:18):
He got it, like he got hit.

Speaker 1 (44:21):
So I don't know if they were smart.

Speaker 2 (44:22):
So here's the thing, so you know, there's more evidence,
it's just more confusing, yes, exactly.

Speaker 1 (44:28):
So it's like, okay, let's say they did break up
his tail light, because there is there is police footage
of her car within the sally port at the police department,
and you could see people walking around in her car.
So there's opportunity, right, there's opportunity for someone to mess
with her tail light. They have it on video. It
shows the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, behind the car. They

(44:51):
also when they when they handed over the videos of
her car in the car port at the police station,
they inverted the video.

Speaker 3 (44:58):
She's guilty of something.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
I mean, she was a druns driving and then dropped
him off drunk and then called and screamed him.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
You're angry because she screams at him.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
If you can starr to be killed, Well, yeah, it's.

Speaker 3 (45:14):
A trigger for me. I don't know where it comes from.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
During the trial testimony, so they had a crash data
expert from the Massachusetts State Police. He described information or
treat from Karen Reid's SUV. According to his analysis, the
vehicle had been shifted into reverse and reached the speed
of just over twenty four miles per hour before slowing
down abruptly with noticeable movement of the steering wheel. This

(45:47):
expert suggested that this information that they were treated from
her car could be consistent with a pedestrian being struck
and placed the event around twelve forty five am. However,
if you remember the timeline that I gave you, it
would not have happened around twelve forty five because she
was already back to John O'Keefe's house by that time
and had already left out for.

Speaker 3 (46:09):
Leads to more questions, Right, nothing gets answered.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
No. Reid's defense seemed challenged his conclusions, questioning his qualifications
and highlighting that he does not hold an advance certificate
and crash reconstruction. He also was terrible on the sand.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they're so nervous
that they can't answer the questions very well. So the

(46:33):
defense argues that if O'Keefe had been hit by a
vehicle moving in reverse at approximately twenty four miles per hour,
which that's fast, right, twenty four miles per hour backwards, yes, his.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
Box, like in a residential area, you punched the gas
pedal and that starts to get to twenty four miles
an hour. That in that short period of time, there's
not like a lot of roadway.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
But again, I don't feel like if she pulled up
to the house and she's sitting on the side of
the house and he goes into the house and then
she drives on.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
You know, you know what, it does None of this matters,
you know why, because this all leads to doubt.

Speaker 3 (47:08):
We're not you're never going to figure it out with
this much crap and this all we're sitting here. Every
piece of evidence that you brought up, yeah, just leads
to more questions, no conclusions, not even viable conclusions, right,
So it's really just every piece of evidence has a
reasonable doubt.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
Yes, That's why I think this this trial because she's
she's almost done there, almost does This is her second trial.
This is her second trial. It should start any day
now because I think they have sixteen juror seated right now.
What happened on the first trial, it was a mistrial.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
Yeah, but do we know do we know how many
people voted or anything like that.

Speaker 1 (47:46):
So when the jury came back, they basically said, we
cannot reach a decision, and where it's deadlocked, there's there's
no way we're both sides. I guess it was eight
thought that she should be charged with vehicular manslaughter and
four didn't think so. But I guess they said that
they were so deadlocked in their positions that there was
no way that anybody was going to, you know, move

(48:07):
one way or the other. So that's why it was
a hung jury. The three charges against her were, now
I don't even remember, vehicular are you listening to.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
Second degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and driving without
it with a broken tailing.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
No, that was not the third one. The third one
is leaving the scene.

Speaker 3 (48:28):
Leaving the scene, yea with a broken tailor with.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
A broken tailing? Yes, Okay, let's get into a little
more evidence. It's going to NYU as well. So Jen
McCabe was one of the women that was inside the
house that evening. So apparently they they confiscated Jen McCabe's phone.
They did the whole data extraction, and the defense claims
that at two I think it was two twenty seven

(48:50):
am that Jen McCabe did a search, a Google search
how long to die in cold?

Speaker 3 (48:58):
This is a twenty seven I'd like to find out
what your Google searches are.

Speaker 2 (49:01):
I need to get some data extracted from your phone.
Life expectancy of fifty year old half Persian, none, the dreams,
bigels every day.

Speaker 3 (49:14):
That's what your search is going to say.

Speaker 1 (49:16):
Never google that before ever. So Jen McCabe told the assistant, well, that's.

Speaker 3 (49:22):
The experts tell me what you search.

Speaker 1 (49:24):
Okay. So Jen McCabe told the assistant District Attorney Adam Lawley,
that she left an Internet tab open after finishing her
basketball related Google searches earlier on the twenty ninth. I
used to always leave my tab open and my kids
would yell at me, she added. She further testified that
she used the same tab later that morning would read
frantically asked her to look up hypothermia.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
So here's the was what time was this search?

Speaker 2 (49:48):
This is where again you're gonna say, there's more questions.

Speaker 1 (49:53):
Yes, because she did. She doesn't dispute that she did
google how long to die in the cold, But the
problem is the defense.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
She can't and it was Claire's day, so of course
she didn't dispute it, right.

Speaker 1 (50:06):
But there's a dispute as to when she did it.
The defense claims that according to what they extracted from
her phone, that she made this Google search at two
twenty seven in the morning, which would be apparently like
after he.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
Was not not as a normal time that someone would
normally search for when how long it takes for someone
to die in the snow? Right?

Speaker 3 (50:27):
Usually that's done after brucast she right.

Speaker 1 (50:29):
She claims that she made the search at six something
in the morning.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
After his body found Like as a result of the scene,
she's like, oh my gosh.

Speaker 1 (50:39):
Right, how long does it take to die in the hole?

Speaker 3 (50:40):
Because that's what I would do if I find someone dead,
I'd be like, oh, let me let me determine.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
Right, That's the stupidest thing.

Speaker 2 (50:46):
That still doesn't make sense, So someone's dead, Well it man,
it's probably nerve wrecking and worrisome, and there's cops everywhere,
and then she's gonna all a sudden start to investigate.

Speaker 3 (50:57):
Whatever it is.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
She claims that she was looking at up because I
guess Karen Reid was because it was chaotic and she
was saying that he died of hypothermia, and so she
was googling how long did the office.

Speaker 2 (51:09):
That's not normal behavior to search something that sophisticated or
that detailed when there's a crime scene going on.

Speaker 1 (51:15):
Right, and I don't understand the dies she searched it
she did that search as part of the cover up.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
That would be my guess, Like, yeah, but let's say
he died in the coal Okay, let me hold on.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
Let me google and see how long it takes to
die in the cold.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
So you think she did it at two twenty seven
am in the morning after something nefarious happened in the
house and he'd got in a fight and someone hit
him over the head and then he died and the.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
Dog attacked him, and that's a possibility.

Speaker 1 (51:43):
And you're saying she was like they all had some
cover up where they were like, let's drag his body
out into the yard and make it look like he
died of hypothermia, and she googled how how long to
die in the cold? Yeah, that's a possibility, because the
defense claims that, according to the data that was extracted
from her phone, she googled this atuo twenty seven in
the morning. I don't understand how there's a discrepancy in
the time. Why is it just not clear what time

(52:06):
she googled it?

Speaker 2 (52:06):
If we have such yeah, I've been so digital, right, right,
If there's.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
Such a digital footprint on everything we do.

Speaker 3 (52:14):
They probably even know where she her phone was at
the time that she made.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
Right, So why is that Why is that up for
debate whether she googled it at two twenty seven or
whether she googled it at six point thirty in the
morning after the fact, because clearly, if she googled it,
googled it after he was dead.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
Even though it's weird, one expert says at one time
and another expert says another time, Yeah, it's stay in
the same time zone. Maybe that's what it is. Maybe
one man say Pacific Standard time. No one says, no,
it's Eastern.

Speaker 1 (52:43):
Well, I feel like you should reach out to Alan
Jackson and ask if you can be on the defense team.
I could, Yeah, I think you should. All right, so
there we go. That's another piece of evidence that it's
like again, it's like the same with the tail light.
It's like it's like the tail light, but the tail.

Speaker 2 (52:57):
Light the same results more questions, the more we have
the Google search, and it's like, oh, well, if it
was at twenty seven, that's pretty shady.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
But if it's at six am after the body's sound,
then okay, that kind of makes sense, kind of all right.
There's also testimony that people heard Karen Reid say I
hit him, I hit him, I hit him.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
Because that's normal behavior for someone that runs over their boyfriend.

Speaker 1 (53:25):
Jennifer McCabe testified that Karen Reid allegedly repeated the phrase
I hit him after a paramedic asked what happened to
John O'Keeffe. This is after the body is found in
and the paramedics are on scene. There's several first responders
who also testified and echoed the same claim that they
heard her say I hit him. Defense attorney Alan Jackson

(53:48):
noted that the statement wasn't recorded in official reports or
on any scene footage. So again here we go. Again.
We have people claiming that she screamed I hit him,
I hit him. However, there's no actual footage of her
saying it, and there's nothing written in any report. So
you're going to tell me if cops are on scene
and first responders are on scene and she's saying I

(54:11):
hit him, that nobody writes that down. Yeah, but they're
going to testify after the.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Fact that on the first responders heard like only the
like the cops didn't.

Speaker 3 (54:23):
Hear it or anything, but the cop.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
I mean, if it's a conspiracy, though, the cops should
have heard it. But maybe the conspiracy wasn't fully put
together yet because this is early the next morning. Maybe
so far it's only the cops in the house and
the people in the house that.

Speaker 3 (54:40):
And there's too much doubt.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
Then there's the snowplowd driver. A local snowplow driver, Brian Lafran,
told the court he did not notice anything unusual on
the lawn outside thirty four Fairview Road when he cleared
the area in the early hours of January twenty ninth,
twenty twenty two. This is a point that the prosecution
and later challenge like.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
I mean, like he could have seen a body. He
could have seen like the cocktail glass someone.

Speaker 1 (55:06):
Well, he's saying that I think he went into work
to plow that night because there was a blizzard or
like two fifteen am. I think that's when he clocked
in or whatever.

Speaker 3 (55:14):
Nothing.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
And he's saying after he got his vehicle at two
fifteen and he drives down Fairview, it's very well lit
at that he said, he constantly looks around because he
has to observe other cars, people, animals, dogs, Right, it
makes snowplow. Yeah, he doesn't want to hit anyone, right.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
It's not like a garbage truck where they're just focusing
on the bins.

Speaker 3 (55:35):
Like, he has to make sure he's not plowing over people,
dead people, right, and so crime scenes. Right.

Speaker 1 (55:43):
So he's testifying that he was very aware that when
he plowed the streets and when he went past thirty
four fair View, that there was no body at that time,
which means Karen Reid couldn't have hit him because if
she hit him, he would have been there already because
she hit sometimes.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
Because the argument is she hit him basically when she
dropped him off.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
At twelve twenty five, or whatever. So if she hit him,
his body would have been in the front.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
Yard, was in the yard and the yard. So here's
but he doesn't plowing the guard.

Speaker 1 (56:14):
Nobody drove by the house and the body was in
the yard by the street. So he's saying, I drove
by this house.

Speaker 3 (56:21):
Not buried in snow or anything.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
I mean, maybe maybe it was covered in snow, but
I still feel like you would have noticed a large
man in a yard. So he claims he did not
see anything like that. Let's hear some other things that
I really took away that I thought was really interesting.
There was a lot of butt dialing going on that

(56:44):
night between the people and the house, and a ledge
butt dialing. So Brian Albert owns the home, and again
he's a sergeant in the Boston Police Department. Before I
get into the butt dialing, there's one other thing I
thought was really strange. There was a crime scene in
front of Brian albert house at six o'clock in the morning.
He is a cop, and he never left his house.

(57:04):
He never went out to see what was going on.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
I mean during the investigation. Yeah, like as if you
had no interest in it.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
I don't know, I'm just saying at six o'clock in
the morning, it's his house, there's a dead body found
on his lawn. There's a bevy of police and ambulances,
and Karen Reid's running around screaming, and there's two other
women there, and he's he's a cop, he's a police officer,
and he's just inside chilling in his house. He never
goes outside and asks what's going on? You're gonna tell

(57:35):
me that's not odd behavior, that's a very odd behavior.
I mean, I'm not a cop, but if there's a
dead body of my front lawn, I'm gonna go outside
and see what's going on.

Speaker 3 (57:47):
Yeah, yes, what are his Google surgeons? That's what I
want to know. And what is he texting during this time?

Speaker 1 (57:52):
Well, I don't know about text said, but Doda, sorry,
I wanted to establish them again that the homeowner is
a police officer, and that there was a crime scene
in his lawn, and that he never went outside and
asked what was going on or what was happening. I
think that's odd behavior.

Speaker 3 (58:10):
That is very odd behavior.

Speaker 1 (58:11):
Also, there's some butt dialing going on between him, Brian
Albert and Brian Higgins, who is the ATF agent who's
the one that had the text exchanged with Karen read
about you're hot, I'm hot, We're hot from John, all
that kind of stuff.

Speaker 2 (58:27):
So it is the story that there's phone calls between
the parties and they're saying, no, is this accidental dialing?

Speaker 1 (58:35):
Right, So there's there's a one second call from Brian
Albert to Brian Higgins at two twenty two am. Also
remember that apparently Jen McCabe is googling how long to
Die in the Snow at two twenty.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
Seven, possibly at two twenty seven, So there's a lot
of phone activity at two twenty seven, so they're all awake, right.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
There's then there is a twenty two second call from
Agent Higgins back to Brian Albert.

Speaker 2 (59:00):
I'm guessing there's no text between these parties. It's all
butt dialing.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
Butt dialing, yeh. Then Jed McCabe, the one who did
the Google search, placed seven calls to O'Keefe's phone between
twelve twenty nine and twelve fifty and seven of those
calls are unaccounted for. She claims maybe like she put
her phone in her back pocket and her phone just
kept dialing John O'Keeffe over and over and over.

Speaker 3 (59:27):
Then and then it also did a Google search, yes.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
By itself, but the defense claims obviously. Here's my thought
is if she's calling his phone over and over, is
she looking for his phone because something happened in the house.
They need to get the body into the yard, and
maybe they need to locate his phone and put his
phone with the body. They can't leave his phone in
the house. I don't know. That's just me thinking, what's

(59:51):
going on with all this butt dialing? Why is everybody
calling each other? Why is she calling John O'Keefe's phone.
All right, So anyway, that is a lot of the
crazy evidence in this case.

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
So it's your verdict.

Speaker 1 (01:00:03):
I'm telling you I don't have a verdict.

Speaker 3 (01:00:06):
And then that's then not guilty.

Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
Yeah, I would say if I were sitting on the
jury and I was presented with all this evidence from
the first trial, I would say not guilty because to me,
there is enough reasonable doubt that I could not convict
this woman and send her to the present.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
So by a legal standard, we agree not guilty by
all the evidence.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
That we've gone over. Now, what do you really think happened?

Speaker 1 (01:00:31):
What do I really think happened? Yeah? I here's what
I'm going to say. The most plausible thing that could
have happened that night is that she's drunk. He's drunk.
He gets out of the car, he's got a drink
in his hand. They're fighting. Maybe she puts it in
reverse and she backs over him and she doesn't mean
to at twenty four miles an hour, at twenty four

(01:00:51):
miles an hour, and then she drives away and doesn't
know that she done, and he dies in the snow.
But anyway, that was a pretty deep dive into Karen Reaid.
I know there's a lot of other issues that we
could discuss. If you guys have comments or questions or
other things that you would like us to talk about,
please feel free to damn me. And again, thanks for listening.
We appreciate you.

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
Thank you.