Closing arguments in Karen Read's retrial — full video

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:02:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:04:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:07:00] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:08:30] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [00:09:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:10:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:12:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:13:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:13:30] Speaker 2: Thank you. [00:14:00] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:14:29] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:17:29] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Carthy's, which you've heard about, eventually made their way over to the Waterfall Bar and Grill. When they got there, the Albert family, they were already there, and they were already drinking. The Albert family, it's been established as a very well-known family in Canton. They've got quite the reputation. Brian Albert was at the Waterfall, a long-time Boston police officer. His wife, Nicole Albert, was there. She was with him. His brother, Chris Albert, who was a Canton board selectman, he was there. His wife, Julie Albert, their daughter, Caitlin, and his sister-in-law, Jennifer McCabe, whom you met, and her husband, Matthew McCabe, whom you did not meet. They were all there drinking before John and before Karen ever arrived. But also present at the Waterfall that night was Brian Albert's friend, Brian Higgins. We know that he had a romantic design on Karen. That becomes an incredibly important fact as we discuss the facts of this case. As the bar was closing around midnight, the Alberts invited everybody back to their house. They wanted to keep the night going. But the evidence revealed something interesting, that the invitation to John O'Keefe appears to have been for a different reason, an alternate reason. Think about the video of Brian Higgins and what Michael Proctor, in his investigation, completely and utterly ignored. Higgins was agitated after a day of drinking, agitated that it was John and not Karen, John with Karen, not him. Recall that ominous text that he sent to Karen with her and John standing just feet away. Well, he got no response. And then we see this. That's what Brian Higgins was confronted with following his, um, well text. What of all things starts going through Brian Higgins' mind? Where does his mind go? What is he thinking about after seeing this, after witnessing this? He shows you. And if Michael Proctor had been the least bit interested, this video would have shown him too. Take a look. [00:25:26] Speaker ?: Take a look. [00:25:50] Speaker 3: Sparring. Practicing. Fighting techniques. Where was Brian Higgins' mind? What was he thinking about? And then what happens? Before you look at the next video, think about what you're going to see. This next video is after he sees John kiss Karen on the forehead, after he sends that aggressive text to Karen with her standing just feet away. Watch closely, and this is what you're going to see. This is what Michael Proctor, in his investigation, completely ignored. Higgins is very clearly upset. He's agitated. Chris Albert tries to control him. He tries to talk to him. Calm him down, perhaps. Chris forcefully grabs Higgins' arm. You'll see that in the video that you're about to watch. It appears that Chris is trying to calm him down from something. Brian Albert's standing right there with the other two men. But Brian Higgins is having none of it. He appears to be hyper-focused on one person and one person only, John O'Keefe. In an instance, Higgins angrily jerks his arm away from Chris. Higgins rubs his brow, and he directly gestures at John. A gesture that looks a lot like, let's step outside. Let's go outside. But John looks at him, takes a swig of beer, completely ignores him. Take a look. [00:27:28] Speaker ?: Take a look. Thank you. [00:28:04] Speaker 3: Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in this case, had all this footage, but he did nothing. He had access to the exact same thing that you saw. Why did he do nothing? A few minutes later, Higgins then texts John directly. You coming here? Three question marks. It's now 12.20 a.m. These guys are not good friends. They barely spoke or even acknowledged each other when they walked into the bar together, other than a quick greeting. So why was Higgins coaxing John over to 34 Fairview? You coming here after this? And why not text Karen? Because at that moment, he wasn't interested in Karen. He was interested in John O'Keefe. This is about five minutes before John gets out of the SUV and walks toward the house, about five minutes before Karen sees him alive for the last time. So what happened inside that house, or that basement, or that garage? What evidence was there for the investigators to look into? What did they ignore? Laceration over John's right eyelid, black eyes, a large dog at the home, an obvious dog bite on John O'Keefe's right arm, a head injury from falling backward onto a hard surface, alleged surface. A text from Higgins, one of the last people to ever communicate with John O'Keefe. You coming here? Those words now echo in the wake of John's death, but Michael Proctor, he didn't listen. When John didn't come back outside, Karen, very oblivious to what had happened, thinking she was just left alone in the car, out in the cold, in the middle of the night, she got frustrated and she drove home. She arrived back at home and her Wi-Fi connected to John's, sorry, her car or phone connected to John's Wi-Fi at 12.36 a.m. It's an important time, 12.36 a.m. She left John voicemail after voicemail after voicemail. He was unresponsive. He didn't pick up a single call. He didn't respond to a single text. The longer he didn't respond, the more upset she got. Her voicemails reflect that frustration after the fact. That's the frustration that you hear in her angry voicemails. She uses harsh words and foul language. She's obviously upset. She's obviously irritated because he didn't come back out of the house. And he wasn't responding. But Karen did not know what you know. She didn't know what the investigators should have known. She didn't know what was happening with Higgins and Albert and with her boyfriend, John O'Keefe. When he didn't come home at about 5 a.m., Karen went looking for him in a panic. As you know, her worst fears were realized when she found John beaten, battered, bloody, and left in the snow in Brian Albert's front lawn. At 6 a.m., when Karen found John, you heard about the scene. It was described in detail. It was chaos. To use Mr. Brennan's word in his opening statement, it was bedlam. The screams for help by Karen, the yelling and the hollering, ambulances, emergency lights, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles, patrol officers, all of them swarming all over the lawn, just under Brian Albert's bedroom window. And, of course, as you learned during the course of this trial, Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder trained in being a first responder, never came out of the house. Never went outside to help a fallen fellow officer who was laying on his own property. Never came out. And you learned through the undisputed evidence that the lead investigator, Michael Proctor, for his part, never went into the house. The Commonwealth has struggled to try to prove that John O'Keefe ended up in Brian Albert's front lawn because he was struck by a vehicle. They have failed. They cannot and they will not ever be able to prove that John was struck by a vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty because the science does not lie. The medical evidence does not lie. The physics do not lie. Their investigation was flawed from the start because their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias, personal loyalties. Folks, they cannot prove a collision. John O'Keefe was not hit by a car. There was no collision. So let's start there. I want to take a minute to discuss the actual science, the actual physics, and the actual medical evidence that was presented in this case. The science, as an old saying, is known as the silent witness. It doesn't lie. It doesn't forget. And notably, it doesn't take sides. If there was no collision, what are we doing here? In order for there to be a collision, there has to have been an impact site. The vehicle had to have struck John. Period. I want to remind you of some of the most important testimony in the entire case, and it comes from the Commonwealth's own medical expert, Dr. Irini Skordiebello. The Commonwealth's medical examiner, someone governed by law to make these decisions. We know that a person struck by a vehicle suffers massive trauma, broken bones, fractures, soft tissue damage, torn ligaments, contusions, soft tissue injury, severe tissue injury, crushing blows. None of that was present with John. None of it. Not anywhere on his body, including his right arm. Not one bruise. Nothing. The fact is, the injuries are not from a vehicle impact. Not his head injury. Not those scratch and bite wounds. Not a single medical expert. Think about this. Not a single medical expert called by the defense or called by the Commonwealth has testified that John was hit by a car. Not one. Think about the irony. Not one. That's not just significant. It's literally the most important point in the entire trial. Listen again to Dr. Skordiebello's words. Question. You did not include in your autopsy, in any fashion, any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident. Did you? Answer. No. I did not. She told you, quote, I did not see any evidence of an impact site, end quote. She was talking about John's body. The Commonwealth's own medical examiner, Dr. Skordiebello, performed the autopsy. She did it personally. She's the only one to have personally examined John's body. And she found no evidence of an impact site on his entire body. That in and of itself is reasonable doubt. You don't need anything more. The Commonwealth's case is done. It's cooked. Their own experts said there is no evidence of a collision. No evidence of an impact. If you want to know what an impact looks like, take a look at this. This is what a body looks like after being struck by a car at 25 miles an hour. And this is what a car looks like after hitting a person at 25 miles an hour. These are exhibits from Dr. Welcher, the Commonwealth's expert. John didn't even have a bruise. Make no mistake. Dr. Skordiebello was presented with the Commonwealth's theory of the case, the same case that you've been presented with. And she refused to conclude that John's death was a homicide. She flatly refused to conclude that there was a collision. And you know who agrees with that? That silent witness. The science. The physics. The data. Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Rensselaer, you just met them recently. They explained they were not initially hired by the defense. They were asked by another agency to conduct their analysis. They looked at the evidence from both sides, not taking a side for the defense or the Commonwealth, completely independent. They looked at the damage to the SUV on the one side of the coin. They looked at the injuries to John O'Keefe on the other side of the coin. Both PhDs, both engineers, determined there was no collision. I'm not saying it. The science says it. That SUV's taillight was not damaged by striking an arm. And John was not struck by a 6,000-pound SUV. Period. Full stop. Dr. Dan Wolfe did the testing on the taillight. Actual testing, not some ridiculous blue paint kindergarten project. He did lab testing. He did field testing. He did data testing. Actual impact force analyses. In every single test at every single speed, the taillight damage was inconsistent with striking an arm. In every test, the taillight damage was inconsistent with damaging the shirt, the sweatshirt. Remember that severe internal damage to Karen Reed's taillight. Not just the outer lens, the internal diffusers were completely smashed, completely shattered. Arca testing established that all the internal components of every single test taillight, especially the diffusers, remained completely intact. Conversely, on Karen's taillight, the diffusers were almost completely gone. Folks, understand something. If any part of that diffuser, any part of that diffuser portion of the taillight is broken, there is no light. It doesn't illuminate at all. It's just black. Let's take a look at a couple of photos. At 5.07 a.m. at One Meadows, that's the photograph on the left. What do you notice about the right taillight? It's completely illuminated. Later, at 4.12 in the afternoon, photograph on the right, it's lit up. How can that be? How can that be if the Commonwealth claims that those diffusers, the portion that lights up the light, were already scattered all over 34 Fairview? That's their theory. But don't believe your lying eyes. The taillight's completely lit up. That would be impossible. Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a PhD, a biomechanist, explained that at those speeds, the other side of that coin, John's arm would be basically destroyed. Contusions, swelling, torn ligaments, hyperextensions, dislocation of joints, and bones, fractured, broken, and shattered. But as you know, John's arm was pristine, save those dog and claw bites. He didn't even have a bruise. Think about this. Think about that photo of those x-rays as you deliberate. You can manipulate a taillight fragment. That's not that hard. You can't manipulate a bruise. If they claimed the car was going fast enough to shatter the taillight and shatter the diffusers, that it was also going fast enough to destroy and shatter John's arm, and it simply did not. How do they square that? They don't, and they can't. So they spent nearly $400,000 of taxpayer money to hire someone to dress up and look like John and paint his arm blue. Which told you exactly nothing. The ARCA testing, conversely, also established that it is impossible for John's sweatshirt sleeve to be damaged by an impact with the taillight. The Commonwealth's theory is that the sleeve of John's hoodie sweatshirt was damaged by flying shards of taillight slicing through the shirt and through John's arm. I have three questions. Number one, John's arm had about 36 abrasions. How did 36 shards of acrylic go through nine tiny little puncture holes? How'd that happen? Somebody needs to answer that. Number two, why are there no slices or cuts in the hoodie? All the defects are punctures. Punctures that you might get from, say, I don't know, canine teeth. And number three, if the shards cut bloody gouges into John's arm. That's their theory. Why is there no blood, no skin, no tissue on a single shard of taillight that they claim came in contact with John's arm? The Commonwealth cannot answer a single one of those questions because John's arm was not impacted by the taillight. It doesn't make sense simply because it didn't happen. Compare and contrast the ARCA experts and their actual testing to Judd Welcher. He came to you in the Commonwealth's case in chief and he told you that for the better part of a half a million bucks, he'd come in and testify that John was tall enough to touch the taillight with his elbow. That's it. And even in that basic demonstration, he had to lean in to manipulate it, to get the results that he wanted. Dr. Welcher then claimed that the reason he didn't do the reconstruction, the actual testing, think about what he said. There isn't enough evidence to determine what happened. I beg your pardon? What happens when there isn't enough evidence, in his words? You vote not guilty. That's what happens. That's out of his mouth, not mine. The Commonwealth also used the same company, Aperture, to try to establish a time of a collision that never occurred. The Commonwealth called Shannon Burgess, the supposed expert from Aperture. There is a cardinal sin for experts, folks. A cardinal sin. It's called confirmation bias. It's when you decide to change your opinion to fit a theory. The most important takeaway from Shannon Burgess' testimony was how brazen, how shameless he was in trying to change the data to try to suit the Commonwealth. Remember Mr. Burgess? I'm sorry, remember Mr. Brennan's opening statement. He made some promises to you. He said, this case is about the data. He stressed it over and over again. They've had three and a half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had this case for three and a half years to get it right. So his top expert, Dr. Welcher, prepares a report. And that report says that John O'Keefe was struck by Karen Reed's SUV at 12-31-38. Note that time. 12-31-38. He was struck. He was immediately incapacitated. He was immediately unconscious. So says Judd Welcher and the Commonwealth's theory. But there was a huge, huge problem with that. And somewhere in the middle of trial, somebody must have realized it. They must have realized that the very data they produced unequivocally establishes that they are wrong about a collision. It could not have happened. Why? Because John was interacting with his phone after 12-31-38. Remember, the collision immediately incapacitating. How could he be interacting with his phone afterward? He was on his phone, opening his phone, checking his phone, reading texts on his phone, and locking his phone. All of it after 12-31-38, which is the time Welcher clocked for the moment of the impact. And he was taking steps and walking with that phone after 12-31-38 also. That's what their own data showed. And it devastated their case. And it devastated that false theory. There must have been panic, I'm guessing, in the room. What do we do now? The data shows John wasn't struck by the car. What do we do? Enter Shannon Burgess. Question. Can you believe him? Can you believe Mr. Burgess? He came up with a brand new story right in the middle of trial. You might ask yourself, would an expert actually say something he knows not to be true? Would an expert actually say something he knows is not supported by fact? Would an expert shade the truth? You don't have to look any further than Shannon Burgess's CV to answer that question. That was a shame. Even with the pull and push and stretch and manipulation of the time data that Mr. Burgess came in here and told you about, it still shows that John O'Keefe was very much alive and walking around after they claim he was hit and incapacitated. Think about that. Matt DeSogra looked at Burgess's report and told you that in 30 out of 30 scenarios of the possible time skews that Shannon Burgess identified. He came in in the middle of trial and identified all these other time skews that he called it. In every single scenario, John was alive and walking after they said he was hit. And that's a problem for them because there was no collision. Just look at Mr. Whiffen's data, Ian Whiffen. John O'Keefe took 31 steps at a steady rate, about 83 feet. And then think about this. In a westerly direction, that would be right toward the house. Remember, it's 78 feet to that garage door. That's not a coincidence. The Commonwealth's witnesses, or the Commonwealth's witness, Mr. Ian Whiffen, himself conceded that he has reasonable doubts about the accuracy of John's location data. Remember that question and answer on cross-examination by Mr. Alessi. Do you have doubts? I do. Are those doubts reasonable? They are. And remember, it's still the Commonwealth's burden. If their own cell phone expert has a reasonable doubt about John's location, so should you. John O'Keefe was inside, and the phone battery temperature further proves it. This is not speculation, this is science, and it's irrefutable. It tells us that he was laying, he was not laying outside in the cold, he was inside somewhere a little bit warmer. Ian Whiffen told you that when the iPhone is exposed to freezing temperatures, think about these numbers. When the iPhone is exposed to freezing temperatures, it will drop from 81 to 21 degrees in 15 minutes. 15 minutes. That's a 60 degree drop in 15 minutes. Now look at John's phone. It was laying, according to the Commonwealth, it was laying directly on frozen ground. He arrived at 34 Fairview on his, and his phone dropped only 20 degrees over the course of an hour. Then, inexplicably, it stayed steady. Never dropping below 50 degrees for the next 4 1⁄2 hours. Never dropping below 50 degrees for the next 4 1⁄2 hours. Basically, through the entire night. He was not outside. He was someplace warmer, like a basement or a garage. Dr. La Posada confirmed that John O'Keefe did not have hypothermia. No telltale signs, no telltale Wyshnuski spots, no frostbite on any extremity. He did not die of hypothermia because he wasn't outside. Dr. Isaac Wolfe, Dan Wolfe, Elizabeth La Posada, Judson Welsher, Andrew Rentschler, all agreed. Every expert agreed. This is how John O'Keefe died. A rearward fall from a standing position. What could make you fall straight back like that? Let's just think about that for a second. What could make you fall from a standing position as Judd Welcher just showed us? Standing up, falling straight back. Add a laceration to the right eye consistent with a fist or a punch. And you've got your answer. He certainly didn't sustain that wound on the back of his head by falling backwards onto a lawn. Dr. La Posada told you that the patterned injury on the back of John's head could only be produced by hitting a hard, ridged, or ledged surface, like a concrete stair or step. What's just through that garage door? Michael Proctor never stepped down in that garage to find out. What a shame. And look at the arm. Just look at John's arm. You don't need the top experts in the country. But you had them. You don't need the top medical minds on the planet on this issue. But you had them. These are dog bites and scratches. These are animal wounds. Not one witness has been called in their trial. Not one. Eight weeks and counting. Not one witness who disputes, who actually disputes, that John O'Keefe's arm injuries are from a dog. The Commonwealth could not find a single medical expert, a single medical witness, who would come in here and tell you those are inconsistent with a dog bite or a scratch. And it's equally clear that there was no collision. Dr. La Posada told you in probably the clearest voice in the entire trial, you remember her testimony, he didn't get hit by a car, in her words. He just didn't get hit by a car. You remember the question that was posed by Mr. Brennan, did you consider the speed of the vehicle? And she said, speed didn't matter because he didn't get hit by a car. She repeated it three times because it's true, not just because she says so, but because the medical evidence proves it. The medical science proves it. There was no collision. Dr. Rensselaer told you unequivocally and just as firmly, he didn't get hit by a car. The Commonwealth has not met their burden. They cannot meet their burden. The Commonwealth hasn't called a single medical professional, not one, to testify that John's wounds came from being hit by a car. Not Dr. Scordy Bellow, not Dr. Azek Wolfe. Contrast that with the caliber and the quality of the experts who came in here to tell you what is obvious to anyone with common sense. Those wounds on his right arm are from a dog. This was not an oversight by the Commonwealth. It's just that there is no one out there, no matter how big a check you write. There's not a medical expert who's going to disagree with that. The fact is, this is the central fact in the case. The only fact that matters is literally uncontested by every medical expert, uncontested, undisputed. There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. How much more reasonable doubt could there be? This case should be over right now. Done. Because there was no collision. So given all that, how did Karen Reed end up sitting here? Why is she even here? Why is she in that chair? Why is she in this courtroom? There is a reason for that. And it's a reason they don't want to tell you. And it's a reality they don't want to admit to. The reason we're here is because the system, the very system that was meant to protect her, that was meant to protect all of us, that system has failed badly. So now let's discuss the facts that were and were not presented by the Commonwealth in this case. Over the next few minutes, I want to talk about the utter failure of the police to investigate this properly and to investigate this fully. And what you're going to see is that Michael Proctor, the lead investigator for the Commonwealth, did nothing to actually and properly investigate this case. Let's start with the House. That's the most logical place to start. I think you'd agree. Brian Albert's house where John's body was discovered lifeless in the lawn. A man, a police officer, is found dead on the front lawn and no one secures the scene. No tape, no preservation of evidence, no crime scene log, no search warrants, no consent searches, no photographs of the house interior. They didn't treat the house as a crime scene. And shamefully, they didn't even treat the yard as a crime scene. The lame excuse offered by retired Lieutenant Gallagher. It was really cold and windy. And I didn't know if there was a crime that had been committed. What? You didn't know that a crime had potentially been committed. You have a man laying dead in the yard and here are the undisputed facts that those officers were confronted with. Black eyes. Obviously, black eyes are consistent with a fight. Bloody nose. Also consistent with a fight. Bleeding from the face. Consistent with a physical altercation. A cut over the right eye. Consistent with a punch. No coat. In the freezing cold. Not dressed for outside. Dressed for inside. And one shoe on. I wonder where the other shoe could be. I don't know. Maybe in the house 30 feet away. And then you find a broken and shattered drinking glass next to them. The type of glass that you might find, I don't know, let me think about this, in a kitchen in a house 30 feet away. And John's phone was tucked neatly under his back shoulder. Lieutenant Gallagher actually claimed he did not know it was a potential crime that needed investigating. The neighbor across the street, Detective Lieutenant Kelleher, had a ring camera. A ring camera that was pointed at the exact direction where John O'Keefe would have been hit. And nobody bothered to secure it. Nobody bothered to secure it. Nobody even bothered to look at it. Of course this was a potential crime scene. Of course it was. Let's not forget this was Brian Albert's house. And that comes with privileges. Quote, That quote starts to make a little more sense now, doesn't it? Michael Proctor wrote those words just hours after John's body was found. He sent this in a private chat, he sent this in a private chat, in a private text he never, ever believed would ever be revealed. He sent that text in a series of messages that now belong to you. You weren't given the opportunity to hear from Michael Proctor, but you can read his thoughts for yourself. And I urge you, go read them. They're in exhibit 209, 209, in case you're wondering. But here are the highlights. Proctor starts the conversation, quote, all the powers that be, one answers ASAP. He's getting pressure, obviously. Get this done. His friend then asks what Proctor's probably thinking at the time. Quote, I assume you guys are out to make it cut and dry since it involves cups. Something stinks. And Proctor responds, Yeah. To the something stinks. And then he goes on, But there will be some serious charges brought on the girl. Think about that. Hours into this investigation, There will be some serious charges brought on the girl. She's a whack-job cunt. Yeah. She's a babe. Weird Fall River accent, though. No ass. No ass bitch. She's got a leaky balloon knot. Leaks poo. Zero chance she skates. She's fucked. And up to this point, Michael Proctor had done zero investigation. Nothing. Save talk to a grand total of three people, all of whom were named Albert or McCabe. That's it. And this was his mindset. This is the same lead investigator who sent the group chats that you heard about with Sergeant Buknik. Late night, sitting at his office, rifling through Karen's phone, bragging about looking for naked pictures of her. That text wasn't sent to his buddies or his friends. That text was sent to his supervisors at the Massachusetts State Police, for God's sake. And what was their response? Sergeant Buknik liked this conduct with a big old thumbs up. He encouraged it. Ladies and gentlemen, a lead investigator is supposed, every investigator is supposed to be objective, an objective fact finder. No bias, no agenda. Michael Proctor went far beyond just insulting Karen Reed. He dehumanized this woman. He betrayed her as a human being. He was fired for this blatant bias. If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can you trust him with this investigation and with your verdict? And with Karen Reed's life. The lead investigator in a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that. That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want to hear from Michael Proctor? Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in the case? Don't you have questions? The Commonwealth did not present their own lead investigator to the jury, the very jury, who is charged with judging the investigation. Michael Proctor clearly is radioactive and the Commonwealth stayed away from it. Michael Proctor is no longer a Massachusetts State Police officer. He wasn't transferred. He didn't go on sabbatical. He didn't retire. He didn't resign. He was fired. He was terminated for cause. The Massachusetts State Police investigated him, found him guilty of dishonorable conduct, not just for those text messages, folks, for sharing confidential information with witnesses and for bias. Not just any bias. Bias in this case. Fired. This is the man who touched every single piece of important evidence in this case. All the evidence that was brought before you in this trial went through his hands one way or another. The shirts, the shards. Remember that when Mr. Brennan gets up and gives his closing argument. The shirts, the shards, all in Michael Proctor's possession. Mr. Brennan and the Commonwealth, I think, have pinned their hopes on some microscopic pieces of, or close to microscopic pieces of plastic that were claimed to have been scraped from the hoodie several months after the fact. What he failed to ask every single investigator, I'm sorry, every single witness, is who had access to that shirt and who had access to those taillight fragments and the answer is it was Michael Proctor. Not for days, not for weeks, for months on end, for months unaccounted for, before they were submitted to the crime lab, before they were ever scraped. Just go look at the chain of custody documents. You've got them. Why didn't Michael Proctor give those clothes to Maureen Hartnett with the crime lab when she was at Canton PD just days after the fact to receive those Solo Cups? Remember that? Just a few days later, she was there. She drove up. She did the driving to take the Solo Cups in the grocery bag, which has a ridiculous aspect to it in and of itself as well. Why not just give her the shirts as well? Give her the taillight fragments if any were found at that point. Why hold on to them? What could possibly be a reason? Why wait until March to book those into evidence? Now let's talk about some of the other problems with the Commonwealth's evidence. As I indicated, there was no blood, no skin, no tissue, no DNA found on a single piece or shard of the taillight that the Commonwealth claims cut and sliced into John O'Keefe's arm. Where is that trace evidence? Where is that biological evidence? The DNA. Where is it? They've got nothing. Not a single piece that the Commonwealth wants you to believe cut up John's arm. How is that possible? It's not possible. The only way it's possible is if those shards never touched his arm. Because it was a dog. Oh, and the one sample of DNA that they did find, by the way, was found on the outer smooth part of the housing. Not any shard. It was the outer smooth part of the housing. Nothing that they claim actually came in contact with John O'Keefe. Number two, that sample had DNA of two other men. Two other unidentified males. It tells you that that DNA had nothing to do with a car strike. That DNA would be expected to be, John's DNA would be expected to be all over that car. Inside, outside, he had access to that car for months and months and months. He was in and out of it all the time. Show me some blood, then we'll talk. They can't, and they won't because it doesn't exist. The SUV never hit John. The hair found on the bumper. The Commonwealth really stretched its own credibility on this one. That magic little hair on the SUV supposedly survived a 37-mile drive in 47-mile-an-hour winds. But that little magic hair just clung there. Just hung on. That same hair that moved in between photos in the Sally Port. Remember that? There were two photos taken, and it was either the breath of the photographer or just the movement of walking by the hair it literally moved between the two photographs. But that hair is supposed to have hung on in a 37-mile drive in a blizzard? The only thing that hair proves that the Commonwealth is embarrassingly grasping at straws, that hair has nothing to do with anything. But it doesn't stop there. There was another revelation at trial, a big one, a huge one, and it came from a very unlikely source. Christina Hanley, the quiet, reserved criminalist who told you something the Commonwealth likely did not want revealed because it's devastating to their case. Absolutely devastating. And it's this. The glass on the bumper didn't match the cocktail glass. None of it. Remember, February 11th, Michael Proctor, without any other person with him, no witness, no supervisor, no other person with him, claims to have found a single piece of glass at the scene. February 11th, single piece of glass, Michael Proctor. Keep that in mind. Interestingly, the glass on the bumper that didn't match the cocktail glass, one piece did match one other thing. The Proctor glass. Those two go together. The only two things that go together from that bumper are the Proctor glass. We know that there's no glass in the taillight. We know that nothing else was shattered on the vehicle. Therefore, that glass had to be placed there. Didn't come from a crash. Didn't come from a cocktail glass. So how did it get sprinkled on the back of the bumper? Whose proverbial fingerprints are on that glass on the bumper? The only thing it matched was Michael Proctor. What about the Ford Edge and that snowplow driver, Brian Loughran? He observed that Ford Edge parked outside Brian Albert's house at 3.30 a.m. That vehicle was moved directly in front of where John's body was found sometime between 2.30 and 3.30 in the morning. The only person connected to a car of that make and model, Brian Albert. Michael Proctor did nothing to investigate that point. Did nothing to investigate whose Ford Edge was parked in a spot specifically to block the line of sight in the exact position where John's body would be later found by Karen Reed. No one, not Michael Proctor or anybody else checked it for evidence. No one even asked any questions about it. That Ford Edge, Brian Albert's Ford Edge, completely ignored. Michael Proctor failed to interview obvious witnesses in this case. Why? Why didn't he want to speak to the snowplow driver, Brian Loughran? Why did he falsely claim that no one plowed the roadway that morning? When police dash cam video, you saw the dash cam, it shows plows going back and forth all morning. Why did he wait so long, years even, to interview Heather Maxson and Ryan Nagel, individuals who were literally outside 34 Fairview at the exact same time John and Karen arrived at Brian Albert's house that night? Brian Loughran, had he been investigated or interviewed would have told Michael Proctor that he drove past the lawn multiple times on January 29th and there was no body on the lawn. He would have had a perfect view. Remember the weatherman told you there was only enough snow at that time, I think he said in a very charming phrase, only enough snow to track a cat. I think that was it. there was no body there. Heather Maxson and Ryan Nagel would have told him that they arrived at 34 Fairview shortly after Karen and John pulled up behind them and they would have told Michael Proctor, at least Heather would have told Michael Proctor that when she left ten minutes later, she drove past the SUV and observed Karen Reed in the driver's side, dome light on, passenger seat empty. So where was John? He wasn't outside, wasn't sitting down, wasn't laying down. There's only one place he could be. We could all say it together if you could talk with me. He was in the house. Michael Proctor did not want to have those answers. He did not want to have to disclose those answers. He didn't want the truth. The Commonwealth has presented a shred of evidence of when Karen Reed consumed her last drink that night. Think about that. It's critical information that the Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. They have to prove when her last drink was that night. They have to prove it. We don't have to prove or disprove anything. Every single witness who was asked and who had an opportunity to observe Karen that night said the same thing. She wasn't drunk. She wasn't stumbling. She wasn't slurring her words. She was in the words of Ms. Kolakithis completely normal. Even Jennifer McCabe grudgingly had to admit that fact. It's on video. Instead, they used Uri Buchanek to try to come into court and count sips of alcohol, which he admittedly got wrong. According to Ian Wiffen, the Commonwealth's own expert, the location data using location data on John's phone showed Karen driving lawfully. She was driving safely. She was under the speed limit. She was slowing and stopping at stop signs, slowing around corners. And Ryan Nagel corroborated that when he saw her make that left-hand turn onto Fairview. The Commonwealth has an incredibly high burden to prove that Karen was driving under the influence. They have failed to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty because it depends on when she had her last drink. What happened after she got home and she was upset with John for not coming back out of the house? That would answer that question. As you well know, no one searched the house for signs of a struggle. Not that night, not the next day. I'm talking about 34 Fairview. Not ever. Not once. Not with a warrant, not with consent. They never went into the basement, the stairwells. They didn't look at the walls. They didn't look in the garage. Nothing was ever examined. Nothing was checked for blood. Nothing was checked for DNA. They didn't look for a ledge or ridged surface. Zero. You'll remember how surprised Jennifer McCabe was to recall that there was a garage door even on the house. Except this was her sister's house. She's been going to that house since she was five. She's seen that house. She's been in and out of that house hundreds of times, maybe thousands of times. She's been going to that house her entire life and yet she acted surprised when I asked her about it. Remember Jennifer McCabe's answer when I asked her whether there was a door at the garage. I was asking her about the front door, the side door, and the garage door. And her answer was, oh, actually there is a garage door right there. Investigators never opened that door. Let's change the scenario. What if it wasn't the house of a Boston cop? What if it wasn't the house of Brian Albert? We can be certain that investigators would have torn that house apart to get answers about why a fellow police officer was laying dead on the homeowner's lawn. You can betcha. But because this was Brian Albert's house, a Boston cop, nope. And because he was a fellow cop, an insider, they didn't even open the door. That is not justice, folks. That's just pure favoritism. Each of these facts is more than a question mark. They're failures of duty. They're blank spots on a map where justice is supposed to live. And every single one is a reason why you cannot convict Karen Reed. Reasonable doubt abounds. If the Commonwealth failed to investigate every reasonable alternative, how dare they, how dare they come in here and ask you for a verdict? They didn't investigate the case fully and yet they're asking you to take the easy road and do their job for them. These facts do not represent or represent reasonable doubt. Nothing does. Every one of these facts that you're seeing that we're talking about represents reasonable doubt. Everyone. The police and the prosecution are in a position to take people's liberty. It's the most dire and consequential act a civilized government can take against one of its citizens. Their obligation is not just to try to get it right. They have to convince you to the highest degree of certainty known in human affairs. They have to do it all, every bit of it, beyond any and all reasonable doubt and they have not done that here. And how about the homeowner himself, the host, the first responder, the Boston cop, Brian Albert, who was sparring and practiced fighting with Brian Higgins just minutes before John O'Keefe appeared at his house, 34 Fairview. Brian Albert, who was watching Chloe that night, the German shepherd. Brian Albert, whose phone and his wife's phone were never secured. Brian Albert, who never came out of the house. But that doesn't mean he wasn't awake. It doesn't mean that he wasn't on his phone. Think about this. Jennifer McCabe claimed that her sister and Brian Albert both slept through this complete chaos right outside their bedroom window. But Jennifer McCabe's phone records tell a different story and they tell the truth. She spoke with him for the better part of a minute, 38 seconds to be detailed about it, at 5.07 a.m. And then she lied about that call. Remember that? What was the reason for that call at 5.07? Was it panic? Was it a warning? We know that conversation took place at the precise time Karen left her house to go search for John. 5.07. We could answer those questions if we just had access to their phones. Brian Albert, Brian Higgins. Michael Proctor wasn't interested in their phones. Not only did he not secure their phones, he never even asked. And what about Brian Albert's dog, Chloe? A dog with a history. A dog that is, quote, not good with strangers. Dr. Russell confirmed that John's patterned injuries were from a dog just like the dog Brian Albert owned. And then Chloe just disappeared. Not there the next morning. None of the officers that you heard from said that there was a dog in the house. They didn't see her. She was just gone. And then ultimately gotten rid of altogether. Who gets rid of their family pet? Unless they had something to hide. Michael Proctor wasn't interested in that either. And recall the group chat with the Alberts and the McCabes. They were getting their story straight. Matt McCabe, whom the Commonwealth did not call in this trial, instructed the group in that group chat. You'll recall, tell him to say the guy never came in the house. Think about that exact quote. Tell him to say the guy never came in the house. And Brian Albert, the patriarch of the family. Exactly! Exclamation point. He blessed it. With the truth, as we all know, you don't need to get your story straight. You don't need to tell someone what to say. It's just, it's just the truth. And what about the Google search? A Google search that Jennifer McCabe admitted having made. A Google search that was time-stamped by Celebrite at 2.27 a.m. A Google search that read Haas Long to die in cold. It is uncontested and undisputed that that search was deleted. If the 2.27 a.m. timestamp is not true, why does Jennifer McCabe have to lie about it? Why delete it? If the 2.27 a.m. timestamp is not true, why create a false story about Karen screaming Google hypothermia? That's just a fabrication. That's just a made-up fact. And by the way, if someone does tell you Google hypothermia, why would you Google how long it takes to die in cold? Wouldn't you just Google hypothermia? Jennifer McCabe enlisted Carrie Roberts to help shift the blame to Karen. Why go to that much effort unless you're trying to cover for something? Keep in mind the entire foundation, the entire foundation of her claim that Karen said Google hypothermia is this fantasy about Karen screaming it at the location, at the scene. That's her entire excuse. But that story went completely off the rails when Carrie Roberts admitted that she perjured herself to back up Jennifer McCabe's false story. That was a dramatic moment in court. It's an admission of perjury and you don't see that very often in a courtroom. That tells you everything you need to know about the character and quality of the prosecution's case and their witnesses. Lying and perjury and admitting to it. A fundamental tenet of any investigation is to ensure that witnesses are independent and not influenced by other witnesses. You start by separating the witnesses. Michael Proctor did none of that in this case and we see the results. Think back to Jennifer McCabe's own text messages with Carrie Roberts. What Carrie Roberts, sorry, about Carrie Roberts, not with Carrie Roberts notably. What Carrie Roberts didn't know was at the time she was being interviewed by the police, Jennifer McCabe was in real time. She was bragging about having influenced Carrie's testimony. or her statements to the Alberts and the McCabes. Quote, she's telling them everything. All the stuff. Remember that timeline that we talked about with Jennifer McCabe? That's what she was referring to. She's telling them everything. Everything that Jennifer McCabe had put in Carrie Roberts' timeline. The Commonwealth wants you to believe that Karen Reed made a statement at the location, at the scene. I hit him. I'm sure you'll hear that from the prosecution and their final arguments. But their own witnesses contradict that. Jennifer McCabe admitted on cross-examination that her very first statement to law enforcement, her first statement to law enforcement confirmed that Karen didn't say anything. She asked, could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Is he dead? The physics and the science answer that question. Could you have hit him? No. You couldn't have. Sergeant Buchanek also testified that the only statements Karen Reed made at the scene according to his conversations with the first responders was, could I have hit him? Did I hit him? It wasn't a confession. It was confusion. And Dr. Russell explained that confusion. She told you why Karen Reed or anybody in that position might ask those questions. She was suffering from extreme grief reaction, which according to the evidence can last for years. Even her medical records confirm that diagnosis. It's common to ask those questions in grief. It's common to ask those types of questions in shock. You're trying to make sense out of the nonsensical in the moment. And the Commonwealth has tried to twist those words into a confession. There is no evidence that any officer at the scene ever heard Karen Reed say, I hit him. Not a single police officer at the scene came in to support the Commonwealth's claim. It's not on video. It's not on audio. It's not in a single police report. It's not in a single EMT or EMS report. Nowhere. The fact is, Karen never said, I hit him. You saw the video. Multiple officers were right there. She simply never said it. What did Jennifer McCabe do and not do when she got to 34 Fairview? She would have you believe, I want to set the scene for you, that she's confronted out of the blue with John O'Keefe's lifeless body. Her friend, John O'Keefe. He's bruised and battered. He's bleeding. His eyelid is cut. His nose is bleeding. Karen is screaming at the top of her lungs. Carrie is screaming back to Karen, shut up. Both women begin crying. Both women are giving CPR. There's chaos everywhere. It's building in the yard, just feet from Brian Albert's house. Brian Albert's window. Jennifer calls her sister at 607. With all this chaos going on, no answer. Jennifer calls her sister at 608. With all this chaos and bedlam going on, still no answer. No lights come on in the house. In the midst of all this screaming and this chaos, Brian Albert doesn't come outside. Nicole Albert doesn't come outside during this maelstrom. And yet, Jennifer McCabe never goes inside to check on her sister. There's literally no signs of life inside the house. And Jennifer McCabe doesn't take a foot, a step, inside that house to check on her family. Why is that? Does that make any sense? Anyone, everyone, would sprint inside the house to make sure that there's no one in there that was hurt or injured or God forbid, dead. Everyone would do that. But not Jennifer McCabe. The only way that makes sense is if Jennifer McCabe already knew that Brian and Nicole were just fine. That's the only reasonable explanation. And the only way she would know that they were fine is if she knew what happened. But Michael Proctor never explored this incredibly suspicious behavior. Don't you have questions? This would give anyone reasonable doubt. And don't you have questions also about Brian Higgins? Michael Proctor certainly didn't. Higgins had been sending flirtatious and romantic texts to John's girlfriend Karen Reed. You'll remember I asked Sergeant Buchanek a simple question. Were those texts flirtatious in nature? He refused to answer that simple question. Do you remember that? Quote, I'm not comfortable putting a label on that. End quote. We read the texts. It's not a secret. Of course they were flirtatious. Of course they were romantic in nature. The reason he refused to answer that simple question is telling. It's because these flirtatious texts established a motive for Brian Higgins. Sergeant Buchanek could not bring himself to tell the truth. His bias was on full display. He was covering for another cop. Investigators also ignored Higgins' suspicious late night visit to the Canton Police Department. That was after a night of drinking by the way. Why didn't they investigate this? What was so important that Higgins needed to go to the police station at that time 1.30 in the morning while drunk by the way? Why weren't they interested in those facts? Remember he's an ATF agent. He's a cop. A member of the Blue Wall. And best friends with Brian Albert. He would know that the CPD would be the first to get the call when someone reported John missing or injured. He would know what to look for what to listen for to determine if a report had been made and when and what the response was going to be. You saw the skulking through the hallways with his hood up moving bags between cars and of course that late night mysterious phone call on his cell phone. A phone that you don't have and that you'll never see. All of that and Michael Proctor never gave him a second look. All of that and the Commonwealth who's supposed to be after the truth didn't call him to the stand. If you have any unanswered questions about Brian Higgins that's reasonable doubt. The police didn't interview Brian Higgins on January 29th 2022 but he was at the police station as we've just seen. You heard evidence that Higgins and Chief of Police Kenny Berkowitz also good friends were in the Sally Port together with the SUV for a quote wildly long time. Kelly Dever another Boston cop told you that. She also told law enforcement agents that she found it quote weird that Higgins could have access to that very sensitive evidence the SUV. Folks there is never a situation in which a witness a potential suspect even should be given access to the evidence in a case. But that's exactly what happened here. Higgins was given unfettered access to that SUV and its tail light nearly immediately according to Kelly Dever's statement to law enforcement. And it was at that exact time the exact moment that Higgins would be in that Sally Port that the 42 minutes of the Sally Port video was just missing. It's just gone. Vanished. Well that's convenient. Now put in context the condition of that tail light when it was actually seized in Dighton. It was cracked but not completely damaged. I ask you to compare and contrast Officer Kelly Dever her attitude her demeanor that's all for you to judge her attitude her demeanor her truthfulness her motives from the witness stand. Compare and contrast that to Sergeant Nick Barros. Who's more believable? Officer Barros is unattached to any of the players in this grand play directed by Michael Proctor. He's truly independent. And what did he tell you? Was the tail light he was asked was the tail light in this condition when Michael Proctor picked up that SUV at 412? His answer absolutely not. Absolutely not. It was cracked but not completely damaged. Not smashed out like that. So how did the tail light get cracked? How did it end up in the condition where it was cracked as Officer Barros saw it but not completely damaged? Well you don't have to guess. There's a video. Just watch. That's how it got cracked. And Judson Welcher's own recreation confirms it. Look at the contact. That's from the Commonwealth's expert. And that further is confirmed by the fact that there were no tail light pieces found in any of the initial searches conducted at the scene. Two searches 50 foot area searched. Not a single fragment was found until after until after Michael Proctor had access to and control of that SUV and its tail light. What does that say about the character and quality of this case? It's revealing what happened here at trial. one of the most dramatic moments probably of the trial Kelly Dever. How can you trust this investigation when you saw how far a police officer will go? You had a front row seat to the power of police manipulation and police corruption. A front row seat. Kelly Dever was interviewed by a separate law enforcement agency. Not a friendly department. Not Boston Police Department. Not Michael Proctor's MSP. A different independent agency. She told those law enforcement agents in a formal interview that she saw Brian Higgins and Chief Kenneth Berkowitz alone in the sally port with the SUV. She was detailed. She was clear. She was unequivocal. She remembered the specifics. She recalled how it made her feel quote weird. She recalled that how long Higgins spent a quote wildly long time as she described. These are all incredible details to tell law enforcement. She couldn't have been clearer. She couldn't have been more specific. But then she's put on a witness list and she's subpoenaed by the defense. Oh boy. Then this rookie cop was called up to the police commissioner's office. The same commissioner that was the boss of Brian Albert. They have a meeting. A private meeting. And he says wink wink nod nod we support you Officer Dever. What else was said in that meeting? What else is reasonable to believe was said in that meeting? She claimed she couldn't remember. She claimed not to remember if he instructed her to do the right thing. but the commissioner of the Boston Police Department certainly said something to this rookie cop and all of a sudden that detailed unambiguous unequivocal statement to law enforcement became what did she say? A false memory. Not I didn't say it. She admitted she said it. She admitted she detailed the entire story. She just said it's a false memory. What? So she's called to the commissioner's office to make sure that she would do the right thing. That's why she was called. And now we know what that means. In her words my entire career depends on what I say here on the stand. I'll quote that again. Quote my entire career depends on what I say here on the stand. you bet it does. That's how it works. And that's how we got here. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself can you trust the Commonwealth's case? Can you trust their witnesses? Can you trust their evidence? And here are a few of the highlights. A video that was played in a courtroom and sold as accurate turns out it was completely inverted flipped backward completely false. The test that formed the basis of their entire theory of the case watch closely as Dr. Welcher stands as a surrogate. Is that a righteous test? Or is that a manipulation? Dr. Welcher tried to deceive and fool you by leaning into the car manipulating the results of his own test. When the truth was revealed by Dr. Rentschler the Commonwealth spent the next hour cross-examining it about how that test was meaningless. It actually didn't mean anything. Well that's convenient now that we realize that it was a manipulated test and it actually does mean nothing. It didn't represent the theory of the Commonwealth's case? That's what was suggested. That test does not represent the theory of the Commonwealth's case. Really? Then why was Dr. Welcher playing dress-up in John O'Keefe's clothes or identical clothes to John O'Keefe when he was holding a glass? Why was he holding the glass right behind the vehicle? And why was he standing with his right arm oriented to the right rear taillight if he wasn't trying to recreate the circumstance that is the Commonwealth's entire theory? The Commonwealth stood up here with a straight face and told you they weren't trying to suggest that that's how John was hit by the car. Of course they were trying to suggest that's their theory of the case. They only abandoned it two days ago when it was revealed by our experts that it's physically impossible. That silent witness that science that physics has become very pesky to the Commonwealth because there was no collision. Dr. Welcher also told you under oath that there were no x-rays taken of John's arm. He tried to deceive you into believing that John's arm might have been broken. I don't know. I didn't see any x-rays so I can't tell you what the damage was inside the arm. Really? The Commonwealth has had those x-rays in their possession for three years and again it took the defense to bring out the truth. The x-rays do not fit the Commonwealth's theory so you weren't shown and Dr. Welcher wasn't going to admit it and my goodness then we get to the sweatshirt. That was a moment. Mr. Brennan stood here in front of you and dramatically held up John's sweatshirt not just to the witness but to you and asked Dr. Wolfe about it multiple times specifically while it was in that plexiglass asked Dr. Wolfe about the multiple holes in the back of the sweatshirt. He interrupted Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Wolfe started to look at the sweatshirt and say well I and he said how about here here's a hole here's a hole here's a hole here's a hole dramatically tapping on that plexiglass it was clear what the suggestion was that the holes in the back of John's sweatshirt were from January 29th that's the impression that was expected to be left with you that's the impression that he wanted to leave with you and that's false the truth is the commonwealth created those holes they aren't holes from road rash they weren't made on January 29th those are cuttings from the commonwealth's own crime lab folks that's what those holes are and even with three prosecutors all three of them sitting right there in the room at the time it had to be the defense to correct that record to bring out the truth if we hadn't done that what impression would you folks have been left with that's more than negligence that's dangerous it's dangerous I'm going to guess that Mr. Brennan is not going to say much about this about the fraud that was attempted on you and if he doesn't that speaks louder than any concocted excuse that the commonwealth might come up with it's shameful it's shameful we are after the truth in this courtroom you're entitled to it demand it why would the commonwealth stoop to a stunt like that it's desperation they know what you now know what their experts know there was no collision so now we've reached the final moment of the trial and you've seen the facts and you've seen the evidence and we've just talked about dozens and dozens and dozens of facts that are reasonable doubt each one of them are reasonable doubts these facts these note cards that you're looking at piled high one on top of another literally stacks and stacks of them covering the table as you mentally sift through those cards realize that every one of them is a massive hole in the commonwealth's case every single one of the note cards represents a hole in the commonwealth's case if you're holding mentally even one of those cards you're holding reasonable doubt folks you're holding a not guilty verdict reasonable doubt is not a sliding scale it's a wall if the commonwealth cannot get over every one of these dozens of walls you have to acquit Karen Reed the truth is Karen Reed is not guilty not because of technicalities but because the facts the law the science the physics the data they all say so they demand it the commonwealth does not have a theory about how John was hit by the car they haven't even shown you that it's possible that he was hit by a car and the reason they haven't is because it's not possible that he was hit by a car there was no collision your job is not to do their job their burden entirely it's theirs they have to prove this case and their theory beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty and not only do they not have a theory they can't prove one that doesn't exist all you need to know is that the commonwealth failed they failed to provide you with a truthful representation they failed to prove the essence of their case that John was even hit by a car to begin with they failed to prove any intent on the part of Karen Reed because she has none they failed to investigate the actual suspects in this case they failed to present the lead investigator to you they failed to justify the perjured testimony that you heard discussed in this case they failed to hold accountable an officer who came in here and lied to you and claimed false memories so she could do the right thing to cover for a fellow cop or cops they failed to maintain a fair and unbiased and honest investigation they failed to present you with the truth and this is what you get an investigation that's riddled with errors and omissions and a rush to judgment and conflicted and corrupted from the start every part of it that is the literal definition of reasonable doubt how can they ask you to be morally certain based on this evidence it's a tragedy when the government fails so completely so catastrophically when there are dozens and dozens of points of reasonable doubt on the table your duty your oath your oath is clear your sworn obligation under the law is to acquit Karen Reed not just because you can because you must justice demands it do not let the commonwealth get away with this don't let them get away with this do not endorse and sanction an investigation that is broken and corrupted top to bottom but just as importantly do not let Michael Proctor get away with it and make no mistake about it folks if you convict Karen Reed of anything if you convict her of anything science the physics the data they lose but tragically Michael Proctor wins remember his texts something stinks yeah but serious charges will be brought on a girl she's fucked could you ever ever say to yourself this is justice the fact is there was no collision a car did not kill John O'Keefe so I ask you let your voice be heard not in whispers but in truth let the community feel through your verdict that justice cannot be bent and that it will not be buried find Karen Reed not guilty not guilty not guilty thank you thank you [01:42:08] Speaker ?: thank you thank you [01:42:08] Speaker 4: John O'Keefe was 46 years old 46 years old he spent his life helping people he's described as a good man kind generous thoughtful he was a Boston police officer he worked to help the community everything you've heard about this man he was a good man he helped people when his niece and nephew had nobody he took them in he took them in John O'Keefe seemed to be the type of person who would help anybody at any time and on January 29 2022 John O'Keefe needed some help he needed help from somebody else you see John O'Keefe had just been hit by Karen Reed in front of 34 Fairview Road and he lay on the ground dying and he needed help someone to reach out a hand someone to knock on a door someone to make a phone call to 911 even anonymously not take responsibility just to help and there was only one person in this entire planet who could help him that morning to give him a chance maybe [01:44:13] Speaker ?: maybe [01:44:13] Speaker 4: maybe it was a 33% chance if he met the Isaac wolf of the world but to give him a chance and that one person who could help him that morning was this defendant right here [01:44:26] Speaker 3: Karen [01:44:26] Speaker 4: Reed and she made a decision in her Lexus with the shattered taillight debris failed all over the front yard and John O'Keefe lying helpless like a child on the front yard she made a choice she didn't call 911 she didn't run to his aid she didn't knock on a door she made a decision about herself in her Lexus she drove away she was drunk she hit him and she left him to die she was drunk she hit him and she left him to die before I go through and detail the evidence let's talk a little bit about the evidence as a whole she was drunk she was drinking that night she was drinking McCarthy's with John she was drinking at the waterfall her blood was taken the samples of the retrograde analysis almost two to three times the legal limit she was drunk she hit him the timeline in this case is beyond dispute you can accuse assault characterize malign twist the timeline doesn't change it is data data is data the black box the forensics from the SD card we know exactly step by step where they were we know in that window she hits him because he never moves again his health care data the temperature on the battery of the cell phone the physical evidence the debris failed the DNA the hair and then she left him to die he had a basal skull fracture counter coop you heard all about it when the back of your head hits the ground and the brain comes forward Dr. Wolf told us the reason why they have level one trauma centers around the country is because people can survive this injury if they get help that's why they have this care that's why they have these hospitals but you gotta get help you gotta get help and if you don't you develop symptoms ecchymosis raccoon eyes your brain swells and you die she was drunk and that night was a recipe for disaster but before we get to the drinking in some ways the fate of this night was sealed well before that night because John O'Keefe and Karen Reed were in a toxic relationship this relationship was crumbling we hear lovey-dovey and it was crumbling and we know it and we know it because a month before his niece Kaylee talks about when they went to Aruba it should have been a wonderful event it was discord it was fighting it was aggravation and when they got back the discontent was palpable Ms. Reed reaches out to Brian Higgins text messaging John O'Keefe the relationship is crumbling and you heard a little bit about what that relationship was like Kaylee his niece told you when there was an argument John would do what John does he would walk away she described to you one time to get away from the scene he walked into his bedroom but the defendant wouldn't let it go pounding on his door happened to get the last word never letting go of the fight kind of mirrors what happens on January 29 2022 and maybe outwards of Paris they got along maybe sometimes quietly they got along but behind closed doors relationships have up and downs we have a bird's eye view into the relationship on January 28 2022 because we have the text messages not so lovey dovey the relationship is almost over the tensions are simmering beneath the surface they are not getting along she believes Mr. Keefe is already halfway out of the relationship and he's not into it anymore you will read them you saw them this relationship was unstable and at its end and so fast forward that night that night after this discord after the arguing they go out and what do they do they drink and they drink a lot so Keefe drinks a lot and Karen B drinks a lot you've seen the McCarthy videos you can call it 6 7 8 whatever you want to call it you can see the shots into the mixed drinks more shots into mixed drinks count them yourself over a half dozen mixed drinks in just a few hours sober and then at the waterfall a shot a mixed drink now it was brought up the waterfall that there was some type of discord between Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe they knew each other they were friends Brian Higgins conduct of speaking to Karen Reed is not honorable it's not but they were friendly there was no adversarial relationship there was no anger between them what we heard is they barely greeted each other can we have slide one please at the waterfall bar when you see John O'Keefe come in here's him barely greeting him that's him [01:50:36] Speaker 5: and Mr. [01:50:37] Speaker 4: Higgins barely greeting each other reality sometimes is different than argument this is a celebratory move take that down please celebratory move a bunch of friends they're playing around they're hugging they're grappling this is a fighting technique for a murder two hours later is that the story they're practicing their moves to murder John O'Keefe in this celebratory mood you don't see any aggravation or animus between Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe inevitably the next morning Karen Reed is brought to the hospital and they take her blood now the government doesn't have to prove that she was drunk it is either that she's over the legal limit 0.08 or she had enough alcohol to affect her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely but you will know that she was far beyond the legal limit after the retrograde analysis almost two to three times the legal limit almost two to three times the legal limit now it's been intimated intimated not said that maybe she went home and started drinking after she got home no evidence mind you no evidence and that somehow that is why she had a high blood alcohol level it's not appropriate for me to comment on the credibility of another attorney's argument so I won't do that but Karen Reed will do that for her so if we listen to slide two she'll tell you exactly what she thinks about that point [01:52:26] Speaker 6: my alcohol intakes probably about five or six or four the drinks that they were more they had more heartless just wear most of the alcohol was the weakest pot in time it tasted just like all soda water with blue lime [01:52:50] Speaker 4: slide three please [01:52:54] Speaker 6: I wouldn't have gotten on the expressway I would have gotten on the expressway at 12 15 or [01:53:05] Speaker ?: 23 or 29 [01:53:06] Speaker 6: and it was quiet the world very quiet you can see on the videos and I was going when I had a picture in a direct I was very extra slow and I don't like why my alerts aren't sure they should be but I shouldn't should have been driving up [01:53:27] Speaker 4: thank you you think she drank when she got home when they leave the waterfall bar at 12 12 you see a video you have in evidence there's still a photo of John O'Keefe folding a glass not from Albert home he didn't sneak into the house in the cupboards and grab a glass from the waterfall you see him with a glass and it is a straw take a look at that picture and now from 12 12 on we virtually have a historian in the data that tells us exactly where he went exactly step by step where he went and how do we have that well we know the defendant's car had like a black box in Judd Welcher Dr. Judd Welcher Judd Welcher took the data from the black box and downloaded it so you can see the movements and the triggering events and then Shannon Burgess you don't like what he says don't attack the data attack the man he can be mocked for his LinkedIn profile or his unupdated CV but what he did is he found a key critical piece of this case that did not exist before he found it recently and it was that SD card the SD card that everybody missed including the defense expert everybody missed it so as much as you want to make fun of him Shannon Welcher found the key so that we could have the time and date and location coordinated for an impenetrable timeline that can't be broken that's what Shannon Burgess did and so we know on the way from the waterfall to 34 Fairview Ms. Reed is driving drunk Ms. O'Keefe is in the passenger side of the car and they're heading their way to 34 Fairview and they get lost and now we have more data because John O'Keefe has a cell phone and I said this in the beginning it is a historian doesn't suffer from bias doesn't suffer from prejudice it doesn't suffer from memory loss it has data on it and he puts on ways high location data as Ian Wythe would say and it tells you second by second the speed the location the movement that's what it does and he has healthcare data on that phone the healthcare data separately shows his movement and that is critical it is critical because it not only shows his movement it shows when he does not move that healthcare data is critical and it's not subject to bias it's not in dispute there's no other contrary evidence it is data on the way to 34 care view alcohol fuels tension we know that and we know from those text messages the tension in that relationship and then there's a trigger there is a trigger on the way because they're lost and when John O'Keefe calls Jen McCabe for directions Jen McCabe says something that triggers what's going to happen next could I slide four please [01:56:50] Speaker 6: very close to the outwards in fact when Jen was navigating John to the outwards when I was driving she said it's near Ashley's house Ashley and John hooked up prior to John and I'm dating [01:57:07] Speaker 4: so as they travel to 34 Fairview under the arrest of this crumbling relationship fueled by intoxication we have triggers now we know on their way there we know from the data the data where they went how they moved if we look at slide five Ian Wiffen showed you a guide you could enlarge that just a little please and it shows you with the healthcare data it registers this place climb but it doesn't mean someone's climbing upstairs what it means is there's an elevation and he breaks down the data right the green if you can move down this is still there and then the bottom left that's 34 fairview you can see second by second the circles of their root in the three point turn on cedar crest that's what you see at that point they've left the bar remember the battery temperature was 82 degrees they're now in a car it's now 77 degrees think about how accurate the battery temperature is that reflects the difference between being in a bar and being in a car they take a three point turn at cedar crest and because of shannon burgess and because of judd walter we have the data and it's a triggering event remember if there's an acceleration past 30% it registers data on the car and that's exactly what happens is a three point turn and it all lines up with the cell phone after you synchronize the times it's that simple it's nothing complicated there's nothing tricky there's nothing about it it's data they do the three point turn and you can match the cell phone clock with the Lexus clock and when you do you can reconcile the difference there's been a lot of talk a lot of argument a lot of fights shannon burgess says 21 to 29 seconds mr. disorder comes in unfortunately he wasn't able to actually do anything he wasn't given the invitation to test the data he just looked for it and made criticisms like a Monday morning quarterback but even he looking at the data says well it's three seconds off or two seconds same window same time we have all the arguments we want they're there they're together the data matches up perfectly perfectly and so they make their way down to 34 Fairview Road they don't stop they don't stop at the driveway they don't stop and join O'Keefe gets out of the car they go over the flagpole and lean over two reasons one the data and secondly Mr. Nagel and Mr. Mason at Cedar Crest at that intersection before it goes down to the right they meet they let Karen Reed go first they fall behind in the truck now at this point Mr. O'Keefe has about eight more minutes before the beginning and the end of his life and he's in that car he's in that car for most of it because Miss Mason and Miss Nagel don't see anybody get out of the truck nobody crosses the lawn nobody goes to a garage not just because they didn't see it they didn't not because they didn't see it because the healthcare data on the phone shows that John O'Keefe is not moving the car is stopped at the flagpole the healthcare data stops the battery stays at 77 degrees the data is the data you can't change it as much as you want to it's data and they sit at that flagpole for minutes it's 12 24 33 when they get there they're there past 1230 remember Miss Mason and Miss Nagel said they were there about five minutes and then they go it's not exact but about five minutes they said so there's about two minutes left for John O'Keefe and what are they doing in those two minutes what are the last two minutes of his life that he can remember that would be open to him they're arguing they're arguing they're arguing and we know they're arguing because Miss Reed tells us through first responder Becker she was sad remember he sees her in the back of the ambulance and he's trying to calm her down she was sad because her last moments were arguing they're in an argument that's why they're not going in the house but John O'Keefe decides to get out of the car and we know because the dome light goes on that's what happens when you open a door whether he's bent down he's standing outside on the other side the dome light is on and then you see the data John O'Keefe begins to move 12 31 56 it's the first time he has moved since they got to the flagpole and it will be the last time he moves in his life and he moves to 20 seconds Ian Withan said that the satellites they move they reconnect they pull information he's no longer on high frequency data because waves is shut off now it's more random it's low frequency we would never suggest and Mr. Withan did not claim based on location data alone at that point you can tell exactly what John O'Keefe is what he said is it was readings all night the bullet is always near the flagpole that doesn't mean he was always near the flagpole he could have moved he could have moved in the circle to come back location data is consistent with him never leaving the flagpole but that in itself is not enough but there's more there is more there is the healthcare data there is the temperature of the cell phone battery and so he moves to 20 seconds it turns west it does not say he walks to the house that's not what the data says it doesn't say that he goes straight line and he walks over to the door in fact could he even get to the door 75 feet could he get there because when he investigated for the defense testified he measures from the driveway he never stopped at the driveway he never measures from the flagpole he never measures from the flagpole to the garage door so this fantasy that somehow he walked in the garage even though there's no evidence there's no witness there's no data 20 seconds of his life and he moves and healthcare data registers his steps it could be pacing it could be a straight line it could be shaking the phone we don't know we don't know we don't know everything we don't know every little detail and every little second we don't have to that's not doubt that's not reasonable doubt we know for that 20 seconds he's moving and in that 20 second window when he moves he has his phone and he looks down 1230 209 he sees a text message from his friend jen mccain and he looks at the text message and he closes it and then it happens we know from the uncontroverted uncontroverted data from that black box we know [02:04:37] Speaker ?: we know [02:04:37] Speaker 4: that Karen Reed after he gets out of the car drives away she drives for at least 33 feet away from him he's back near the flagpole she's gone it's over whatever argument is over whatever anger and flame has been dispassioned she's moved on he's separate from her he's safe and then she makes a decision that's what this case is about then she makes a decision she could have driven home she could have broken up with him they could have talked about it the next day or like knocking on the door like Kaylee said getting the last word she doesn't drive away she takes that 6,000 pound Lexus and she makes a decision and the decision is that she steps on the gas after banging it into reverse before we talk about what happens next I want to talk to you a little bit about the charges in this case and I hate to digress but it's important so we really understand what we're talking about here I have no authority to talk about the law in this case the Honorable Judge Kannoni will do that but I want to talk to you a little bit about the charges don't rely on my interpretation of the law it's the judge who has that special power but I want to explain to you a couple things so when you think about what happens next you can really assess the facts of this case with the charges against Ms. Weed she is charged with second degree murder it sounds ominous it is it's a serious charge second degree murder when most people think murder they think shooting or stabbing somebody it's natural to think that second degree murder is different it's not first degree murder I told you at the beginning of this case I told you that we were not going to suggest or try to prove that Ms. Reed intended to kill John O'Keefe that was never part of this case we're not claiming that I told you that we were not ever going to try to prove that she even intended to hit him we never suggested we try to prove that we're not trying to prove that she intended to hit him we're not what we are obligated to prove and what we have proven from the evidence in this case of second degree murder is that she intended an act and that is putting the car into reverse and heading back to her John O'Keefe she a clear plain strong likelihood of death late at night dark beginning to snow under the influence of alcohol knowing where she stopped and left him after an argument heading back in reverse to the exact spot or right near where she left him at over 24 miles per hour accelerating at over 75 percent you need to ask yourself are you convinced if somebody does that does that create a plain and strong likelihood of death and if there's no doubt in your mind that she intended to hit that accelerator in reverse and that that conduct will create a clear and plain likelihood of death then she is guilty of that crime whatever the label is she would be guilty of that crime now think about this let me give you an analogy if somebody maybe a teenager someone young impulsive is on a bridge and they see cars going by and they have a boulder and they want to throw the boulder off they're not looking to hurt anybody not meaning to kill anybody but they throw the boulder off the bridge because they want to see the car break the thrill and when they throw that boulder off the bridge and it comes down and lands on the car and there's somebody passenger anybody in that car and it goes through the roof and kills the person the car did they intend to kill that person no they were trying to have a thrill throwing her off did they have the malice to want that person dead no they didn't but that would be an example of second degree murder when you take a boulder and throw it off a bridge there's a plain and strong likelihood of death when Karen Reed in the midst of that tension and fight after she drove away and was gone disengaged when she came back for the last word in the darkness the beginning of the snow under the alcohol and decided to stop her Lexus decided to put it in reverse decided to accelerate 75% in the exact same direction of where she left him and then hit him and he died I suggest to you that is second degree murder the other charge operating under the influence of alcohol manslaughter it's different it's a totally different and separate charge was she under the influence of alcohol and then secondly did she operate her Lexus wantonly and recklessly in a way that would very likely result in serious injury when you're under the influence of alcohol and you drive a 6,000 pound Lexus in the heat of the moment act the direction of where somebody is whether you intend to hit them or not I submit to you that is wanton it is reckless and any reasonable person any reasonable person would think it's very likely that serious injury would result it's not a matter of intending to kill it's not a matter of intending to hit it is the conduct of the operation and the risk that is created and so those two charges are two of the three the three is leaving the scene knowing causing death and we'll get to that so now sadly we need to get back to 34 Fairview Road where we left we know from the tech stream data that she drove 33 feet at least because it only picks up the 10 second window and when it starts to pick up the data we know she's driving at a speed so it's more than 33 feet we just don't know and then when she comes back she covers at the 33 feet and 50 more 80 feet 80 feet over 80 feet now nobody has ever suggested even Dr. Welcher when she collided with them this data doesn't tell you collision it's a 6,000 pound Lexus it's a 216 pound man it's not going to show a blip it could have been in that 10 second window it could have been 2 seconds after it could have been 4 seconds after but it's in that pocket of time and we know it we know it because when you reconcile the data with the phone that 20 seconds is in the same window of that 10 second window coming back so even if it's a couple seconds later 4 seconds later whatever Mr. DeSorgo wants he stops moving Donald Keefe stops moving forever forever next slide 6 please you'll get to see this more closely and you can probably see it where you're sitting but there's important data data doesn't lie and you will see acceleration 75% you will see speed 24 miles per hour backwards you will see distance over 80 feet that's what you're going to see in this data on that night anger although not necessary in any of these charges anger can be inferred for somebody to come back that hard that fast that reckless that obvious likely to create a plain and strong likelihood of death that data tells a story that can't be changed can't be attacked ARCA they did some crack chest on me you know what else they do texturing data there's nothing about that data that is uncertain nothing what else take that down please when miss reed hits john o'keefe hits john o'keefe collides with john o'keefe we don't know if he went in the air foot we don't know if it was how much of a clip it was we don't know if he stumbled back but we know there's a there's no doubt there's a collision because her tail is all over the yard it's all over the yard and when he falls back and he hits the back of his head his basal fracture he's then lying there helpless when miss reed leaves she leaves behind tons of her tail light all over the yard all over the yard it's called debris field and you've seen videos you can't replicate the exact contact you can't because you need where the person was hit how fast the person was going but you know what happened because when you look at the debris field when a light is broken it's no different than what was on the front yard it's no different she leaves him behind she leaves her taillight behind she goes home and on her way home you know she's still angry you know she's still angry because she starts leaving him voicemails slide seven please [02:15:11] Speaker 5: health care starts at 1231 56 1232 04 [02:15:20] Speaker 4: 1232 12 is the data which is adjusted when you reconcile 1232 09 is when he closes the phone after looking at Jenna McCabe's text 1232 16 is his last steps the disorder says that red range should move a little bit two or three seconds they can move it four seconds five seconds it doesn't matter it's all in the same window it doesn't change we could have slide 10 please [02:15:52] Speaker 5: each [02:16:13] Speaker 4: one of those pegs represents 10 feet you can't place that car where it was in front of you you just can't the data doesn't tell you that but that tells you the movements of that car now as John O'Keefe sadly lays on the ground abandoned you're going to have to ask yourself a question for charge number three reading scene knowing somebody was injured and then died you're going to ask yourself is there evidence that Miss Reed knew that she had hit him don't need to prove it for murder two don't need to prove it for OUI manslaughter but for the third charge carmel has to prove beyond reason below she knew she hit him we weren't there but there was an eyewitness it was a guide and that eyewitness tells us that she knew and that eyewitness is can't can't she tells you that she knew we have slide eight please [02:17:12] Speaker 6: could I have hit him did I hit him how could that have been it was Holly wind I had YouTube on stereo and I thought did he somehow track flag me down which was the reaction I was hoping to go as I slowly pulled away from the house did he come up and maybe trip or bring him to pick up his cell phone and I ran over his foot and then he passed out drunk when she [02:17:57] Speaker 4: left Fairview and left John behind she didn't think he was mortally wounded but she knew she hit him she knew she did him and so when she made her way back home not only did she leave debris field all over the front line but she took evidence with her too hair DNA on the taillight and she drove back to John's house and she started calling on the way back 1233 just a minute and a half later and then her messages show her anger you see this was John's fault this was John's fault and her phone calls tell you about the tone and the destruction of that relationship 53 phone calls that night 53 phone calls not one to 911 not one to Jen McCade please go outside and try to help not one to a hospital not one to anybody but him but him 53 calls slide 12 please [02:19:11] Speaker 5: can you play voice in the other one please [02:19:21] Speaker 6: John I fucking [02:19:24] Speaker ?: hear you [02:19:25] Speaker 4: the calls keep coming cell phone temperature 72 degrees he's been outside now not moving on that cold hard ground with his cell phone under him the warmth of his body the cold ground 72 degrees it tells you the story as this temperature plummets and that cell phone battery is compromised so is John O'Keefe and him and his cell phone alone on that yard 66 degrees to 1245 it is plummeting Ian Whippen's taking a phone and putting it in a freezer not a same analogy the idea that means that John O'Keefe was in the house absurd 66 turns to 61 it is 1253 48 unanswered calls from the defendant he's not in a party he's not wrestling with Brian Higgins he's not in a fight he's in a fight his cell phone would be moving there would be health care data there would be steps if he got into the house in 20 seconds and his cell phone is found under his body the next day and how would he get back outside there would be more steps because this phone is working the data is the data there's nothing wrong with it it's registering everything the temperature the movement he doesn't go in any house he can't go in any house his phone never moves again poison number please listen to this [02:21:07] Speaker 6: John I'm feeling a fucking kid did you [02:21:16] Speaker 4: hear that nobody knows where you are it is 1259 John O'Keefe has been on that lawn for about 27 minutes she hasn't called anybody else hasn't spoken has no information nobody's called her you'll see her phone records and she says nobody knows where you are she knows [02:21:48] Speaker ?: she knows [02:21:48] Speaker 4: nobody does know where he is except her except her why is she asking nobody knows who you are she is starting to get panicked because she knows she hit him not suggesting she meant to kill him or for him to die but she knows she hit him and now he's not responding and she's getting nervous and she's getting anxious and she's leaving call after call after call he's not answering he's not calling back he's not even picking up the phone and we know what's happening at this point panic drunken denial it's setting in and so then we see the health care data from Ms. Reed's phone she doesn't move after a little after one o'clock she could be sitting she could have fallen asleep but she doesn't move for a while but she wakes up she wakes up early the next morning take that down please and when she wakes up she doesn't call Jen McCabe and say where's John she doesn't call Brian Higgins has his number has been texting with him hey was John at a party with you did you see John tonight she knows exactly where she is and she's frantic so she wakes up Kaylee that young girl at the time and she says she's panicked she can't understand where she's saying call Jen McCabe call Jen McCabe why is she calling Jen she calls Jen McCabe you know what she doesn't say when she calls Jen McCabe when did he leave the house what happened last night no no no she calls and says I left him at the waterfall I left him at the waterfall see now it's gone from panicked to self preservation I left him at the waterfall and Jen says left him at the waterfall I saw you in front of the house click hang hangs up hangs up so then she calls someone that she doesn't know very well she calls Carrie Roberts but now she has to pivot because someone has seen her in the exact spot that John will be found soon whether she's the first one there or somebody else John will be found maybe lucky missed him it's a snowstorm you can't see but someone's going to find him at some point so she calls Carrie Roberts it's no wonder she left at the waterfall she pivots and she calls Carrie Carrie Carrie John's dead I think he got hit by a plow why do you think she chose those words why did she choose those words because she knew that there was a collision with a large motor vehicle and she had to substitute her 6,000 pound Lexus for another big vehicle I think he got hit by a plow and so now we have the introduction of Jen McCabe and Carrie Roberts phone calls that they probably never ever wanted a worst nightmare to get a call like that for what's going to happen what they're going to see what they'll never be able to forget but because the defendant is John O'Kee's girlfriend they wake up in the middle of the night in a blizzard out of their kindness their loyalty their devotion to John O'Kee's and when she calls them and tells them that she wants them to come out this soccer mom with a perfectly normal life gets drawn into this whole farce and she answers that call she gets out of bed the spirit and kindness she displays to put herself in that position because someone asked for help because that's what good people do Kerry Roberts didn't know Jen McCabe they both knew John they met each other once years before Kerry Roberts separately at that time answers the call gets out of bed drives to go help because they have a common denominator a common bond John O'Keefe and so you hear and see at 507 the defendant leaves Meadows she leaves and Kaylee is behind waiting and you see her back up and John Welch just showed you all of those demonstrations where you could see the unsettled snow in the back and after the bump you can see the piece is missing no tellite there's no tellite on the ground all the white snow there's no crack there's no break it's a nudge it's a nudge but the tellite has already been broken because when you look at the video not one little piece it's still framed little angle with the light the breaks wrong you take a look you'll be able to slow it down you'll see the exact same piece is missing because it's back at Fairview that's why it's missing it's not there it's back to Fairview and then she leaves at 5 07 she gets to Jen McCabe's about oh 535 28 minutes it's about a 10 minute ride where does she go in 28 minutes where does she go we don't know we don't have data for that but we know when she gets to Jen McCabe's house she is panicked frantic out of my screaming waking everybody up Jen McCabe comes down can't understand her going out to the car to try to console her why is she so frantic why can't she speak why can't she say a word because John went out and had a drink and fell asleep on a couch because John would maybe be cheating on her what is causing this extraordinary duress did she stop somewhere on the way Kerry Roberts comes take charge kind of person she pulls him behind she sees the broken tail light in Jen McCabe's driveway and she decides she's going to accommodate this we're going back to Meadows you're going to follow me leave the car I'll drive at this point Jen and Kerry don't know each other they only met once and they go back to Meadows they obviously don't find John because he's back at 34 Fairview and then they start their way towards 34 Fairview they start driving towards 34 Fairview and they're looking and you heard from Kerry Roberts Jen McCabe they're looking out the window they can't see anything the snow the blizzard the weather the darkness they can't see anything and they're driving and driving and they decide they're going back to 34 Fairview and this is remarkable this is remarkable when they start their way past 34 Fairview they get close and when they get close they can see nothing but they're dependent screams stop let me out and they look around and they say what let me out let me out she does not see John O'Keefe she knows where he is she knows exactly where he is she knows where to find him she knows where to expect to find him because she knows where she left him she tells us slide 13 please [02:29:29] Speaker 6: and I have described this to everyone so you probably know this before but John lived with buffalo on the prairie it was just a lawn in a heap that wasn't a bush or a hydrant or a dog it was a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements and I was looking to find him on the side of the road I was expecting I to find him [02:30:04] Speaker 4: thank you a weird shaped lump in a blizzard did you equate that to John O'Keefe a weird shaped lump not like a bush and that is John O'Keefe she tells us she knows where she left John O'Keefe and so they go over to Mr. O'Keefe Kerry and Karen and she's upset there's no doubt I am not for a second trying to deprive her of the unrest and the trauma that is happening at this scene doesn't change what happened before but I appreciate the trauma and they're trying to help him guess what happens when they first move him around 603 604 he and with data the cell phone battery gets the cool air presses on the battery the cell phone battery drops healthcare data he has not moved since that 20 second hasn't moved they start shaking him you're going to see when you look at the records that healthcare data starts to move he's been there all night all night nobody else her and so when they try to help him she says something that is remarkable she says there's a piece of glass stuck in his nose she plucks it out and she says when she plucks it out blood spurts out we'll talk about that in a couple minutes remember that piece of glass pulls it out blood spurts out that's what she says as they try to help John Jen is calling 911 they would like you to believe there's a conspiracy that the glass that's found in Mr. O'Keefe's body is somehow from inside the Albert house the glass well you will hear in the clips if we don't play it you'll have all the clips with you she talks about the fact that he took her glass he took the glass she says it so the Albert house they don't need to give a glass he already has the glass with straw that's later found on the street by the way that's what happens on impact things move the glass comes with him lands in air 's body debris field moves past him shoe hat straw jemma k makes a call to her sister and they say because it registers 29 seconds a celebrate record is not the same as a call detail record there's no evidence there was a conversation no lights go on there's no conspiracy you can call somebody it can ring it can go to voicemail they have no evidence none that there's a conversation between jen mccabe the person who was ripped out of her sleeve to come help and her sister for some grand conspiracy and so what happens next is traumatic keby roberts and jen mccabe see their best friend prone lifeless frozen on the ground and they're living this torment because somebody brought them into this when they're trying to help john there is not one suggestion from anybody that john ever went into that house there's no reason to go into that house because john was never in the house not one time has anybody said what time did he leave i thought he went in there not even a whisper of it because it never ever happened when they find their friend john he's not twenty feet off the side of the road like mr. wrenchler or mr. wolf thinks he's right there by the side of the road close by the curb could we [02:33:55] Speaker ?: could we [02:33:55] Speaker 4: have slide fourteen please [02:34:00] Speaker 5: you can see there's kerry roberts vehicle and then on the left you can see where they're working [02:34:11] Speaker 4: right off the hook that's not funny to you that is a cliff a stumble and a fall remember when he fell there wasn't snow it was just the beginning of the dusting it was the cold hard ground remember what dr. Isaac told us about cold hard ground causes this type of injury all the time all the time if we could go to slide sixteen please remember the glass in the nose the glass in the nose see on the left that's where the police department found the glass that he took from the car from the waterfall and then he did with 195 matching glass on February 3rd the matching piece of glass was found on the street the matching piece of glass the glass that was found with Mr. O'Keefe was found on the street he didn't fall back eight ten feet from the road it broke and then it shattered and went to the street I would suggest to you it at the time of the collision and he carried the glass with him leaving the evidence behind a trail to memorialize what happened to him that night remember the straw I asked you to take a look at that picture in the waterfall 1212 the black straw and the drink on the street collision glass nose straw back hits his head [02:35:45] Speaker 5: you play the clip on the left please 59 [02:35:51] Speaker 6: so when John got out of the car at Brian Edwards house [02:35:58] Speaker 5: he took Michael 169 please [02:36:06] Speaker 6: so John's laying there left and his right and I approached John from the left that's where the street is and he had a piece of glass like perch on his nose like just wedged like a splinter would be and just pulled it and as soon as I pulled it it just gushed blood down his face [02:36:30] Speaker 4: 9-1-1 is called by Jen McCabe she's not hiding from anybody she's trying to help she's bringing attention to the situation and when 9-1-1 comes we have first responders these people are heroes some of them you've heard from some of them they were born to help people that's what their life is about the detail on all their mechanics getting to work two hours early so that you're there on time so you can help people these are the core of our community mr. nutall this is what he does he rushes to go help he's the first person on his knees he doesn't know this person from anybody but to him it's another human being this is his passion Katie McLaughlin first responder this is not just a profession it's her life yes she knows Caitlin Albert do you think she went there that night at a party and set up a murder and came back and so they tell you they tell you what happens at the scene some things hard to remember some things people will never forget when when you are in a traumatic incident sometimes it's something you'll never ever forget and Timothy Nett remembers speaking to the defendant I hit him remember he's on his knees what happened I hit him I hit him she is now coming to terms with the moment her fear is realized she hit him she clipped him she didn't think he was morally wounded she panicked she can't come to terms with it so she has to bring people with her to face it and now she's facing the reality of what she had done and her emotion is overwhelming I hit him I hit him she speaks to Miss McLaughlin I hit him not did I hit him could I hit him perhaps I hit him that was earlier now she's recognizing what she did I hit him and these her or a perjurer or in on a conspiracy or is it that these good people who went there for a total stranger to do their duty to help happen to remember that she admitted what she had done I know that doesn't reconcile with the boogeyman proctor and the bad government I know it doesn't reconcile with no DNA on this piece or that piece I know it doesn't reconcile but the reality is you have independent core people who hear her say I hit him I hit him and the attempt is to betray everybody as a liar but you don't have to rely just on these good people although you should you should you don't have to because we have a guy and it's Karen Reed slide 17 [02:39:29] Speaker 6: thank you [02:39:42] Speaker 4: I know it doesn't fit the theme the theory the story but she tells you herself she endorses those good people exactly what they had heard she tells you herself she hit them it's undeniable it's unmistakable it's inconvenient but the truth has a way of seeping up to the daylight it could be oppressed and suppressed and pushed down and covered and twisted but it rises it rises and it is not a coincidence there's no coincidence that Mr. Nuttall and Ms. McLaughlin hear exactly that she tells you and Jen McCade when she's sitting next to or standing next to Ms. McLaughlin she tells you that she heard the same thing remember what happened to her on the stand when she had the audacity to say I heard her say it what happened to her this woman who never even wanted to leave her home that day pulled out into a storm to see her best friend dead what happened when she had the audacity to say that and now we know that the defendant herself said the same thing and the funny thing the ironic thing is you will see in a photo when Ms. McLaughlin the firefighter was speaking to the defendant Ms. McCabe was next to her Ms. McCabe was trying to protect her trying to shut her up don't talk you're upset stop saying crazy things the villain of this story was trying to help the defendant from incriminating herself the irony we have slide nine please [02:41:30] Speaker 5: this is the battery temperature you're going to have a chance to look at it if it wasn't so tragic it is interesting it is interesting if you like data [02:41:44] Speaker 4: the 29 1213 it will be in the waterfall 82 degrees 1222 in the car 77 degrees 1237 about three and a half minutes after the defendant collides with John O'Keefe it is starting to go down 72 1245 66 1253 61 and you see it drop at steady off at 12 136 remember the cell phone battery under john O'Keefe either struggling polite or he's fast and the blood [02:42:18] Speaker 5: still is warm either way under him doesn't move again until 606 it trots down seven degrees because the woman [02:42:27] Speaker 4: up pulling on him the cold air is hitting the battery what happens at 615 you're going to see the video you've seen it still photos Kerry Roberts goes over takes up the phone not only she puts it in her pocket and then 20 minutes later the next reading the temperature rises that's not convenient that's not coincidence that's fact that's data and then the boat is passed but the warm environment and it raises up 615 how can someone conspire to pick up a phone on the side of the yard that was under Mr. O'Keefe's body at 615 and know the battery temperature was then going to rise not only would that temperature rise when you look at the health care data at 615 when she picks up the phone you know what happens to the health care data right it starts to move it's data it's data so while they're going through this duress the defendant asked Jim McCade for yet another favor look up hypothermia find out how long it takes for someone to die in the cold and there's Miss McCade in her winter jacket soccer mom trying to help she has MS her hands not working she's trying to type in what's happening during that time it's a frantic scene she tells you that the defendant then wants to run back to the ambulance so she goes with her never finishes or completes the input and then she tries it again at 623 at 624 that's what this woman did that night that morning not only for her friend for her for her that's what she did and what happens to her after because the time stamp when you open when you open the time stamp it's at the time it's open and she's in bed at 227 looking up Hockamock sports because she is so interested in the kids sports and that time stamp stays open and she goes to that tab the next morning when she puts in how long to die in cold and that's being portrayed that she's in a conspiracy she gets vilified as a murderer soccer mom who came to help it took Ian Whiffen five minutes to show you a live demonstration on how simple that works that she's not deleting anything Jessica Hyde told you it's automatic deletions over time you usually can't delete that information that's not a click and swipe like the good doctor Wolf from Arca knows how to do this can't be erased but they still hold on to this as they argue to you and all the injustices that have been done they tell you they want you to believe or take a flyer on the fact that she looked up how long to die in the cold at 227 it is an absolute contrary to the science there's no basis to support it but they stand here in front of you why because every time they say something like that you look the other way don't look at her look the other way 227 look the other way don't look at what she did former trooper proctor look the other way don't look at her every time they make those oh she got the glass inside the albers maybe in the basement look the other way don't look the other way look at the facts look at the data and it all leads to one person there's no grand conspiracy it leads to one person the defendant and it's not just the data and facts it's her herself let's talk about Mr. Proctor you were invoked with this emotion early in the opening that this is a cancer that's a tough word try to evoke that primal reaction disgust I'm not saying you shouldn't be disgusted by the text messages you should I'm sure they're not defensible I don't stand here and defend impropriety I don't but that doesn't change the physical evidence the scientific evidence and the data you've terminated he paid a penalty he was held responsible for what he did he should have been he should have been but that doesn't get a free pass that doesn't change the facts it doesn't change the physical evidence it doesn't change the science it's unfortunate it's distasteful it's dishonorable remember Trooper McKenick was asked was the investigation with honor and integrity and he said it was was Trooper Proctor's effort honor and integrity and he said it was integrity but he never said honor that's a man of honor military service dedicated to his country highest level of clearances to the president of the United States now a state trooper he would not say that Trooper Proctor was honorable because he wasn't he wasn't but that does not change doesn't create a conspiracy doesn't invent a dog it doesn't make somebody in a house something they're not it just doesn't when you read those text messages they're hard to look at it's unfair it's unfair and if there's a penalty more than being fired well maybe that penalty would be deserved but it has nothing to do with the justice in this case it just doesn't there's not one piece of evidence not one that we can look at and say this was tampered with this was planted this was distorted remember when we introduced the taillights at the beginning I didn't introduce the taillights but then the defense did so I put them in those were taillights that were only found by Trooper Proctor I did not put that evidence in understanding those text messages and appreciating the disdain one might have for his comments not that there's any evidence of tampering not that there's any evidence that it was not true but I didn't put that evidence before you because we didn't need Trooper Proctor in this case we don't need Trooper Proctor to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt that's why I didn't introduce that evidence to you now there's been a lot of talk about planting of taillight we know that taillight wasn't planted because Trooper Mechanic and Mr. Proctor did not go down to Dighton to see Ms. Reed until later in the afternoon we know from the 507 video we've seen that we know the taillight was already missing when she's leaving the driveway when the good Canton police detectives went to do a wellness check to care for those young children and they went to the house inadvertently they didn't even know it the dash cam captured the back of the car the taillight pack with snow is missing it's already gone it can't be planted at this point Trooper Proctor still in his pajamas he's not even on the cage he's not even on the scene he's been near the car and in the Dighton videos themselves when you close it you can take it at an angle and it moves but if you get the right angle you can see it's missing it's gone can we have slide 18 please 507 you can play [02:49:46] Speaker ?: you can play [02:49:46] Speaker 4: any angle you want but if you look at this angle it's gone you know the plant is already gone you know [02:49:57] Speaker 5: where it is 34th fairview road on at the retail January 29th we've got 22 [02:50:03] Speaker 4: 4th we'll have 823 look at the right-hand side look at the left-hand side it's a pack of snow it's gone it's gone and the same thing when you do the videos it's a different angle it's a little smaller you can play that and watch the lessons go up and down and slow it down you'll see it expands it's gone so when you have the Dayton officer Barrows come in here and try to tell you what he saw in the salad you've got to ask yourself what interest does he have coming in here in this case a lot of attention on this case a lot of people watching comes in after of course driving all the way out to the defense attorney's hotel to meet in a conference room so he can get a subpoena he spends two hours driving up and back so that he can conveniently get a subpoena that tells him to appear which he could have got by fax or in the mail and so when he comes in what he says is that's absolutely not what I saw absolutely not and then he claims at the last time he testified he had made the same statement I showed him his transcript and did you see the redness creep over his face he never said this before in fact he testified to the opposite and so he sits on the stand with a new story after a meeting we don't know why but then I [02:51:23] Speaker 5: show him that bottom right photo with the snow [02:51:25] Speaker 4: with it missing and I say is this the way it looked that's of course before the snow melts out on the salad port so that you can see it unexplosed and he says yes he had to agree this taillight was gone there's no boogeyman there's no plant there's no Higgins at the salad port there's no one tearing out pieces in fact remember I played you a clip and you'll have it where the defendant says I was picking out pieces it was crashed in the bulb was showing when I was showing Carrie and Jen when they went back to Meadows if you don't remember listen to that clip you'll hear it unfortunately there's no ring video when they go back to Meadows there's a ring video when she leaves there's no ring video when she gets back and so now when we're trying to look the other way we want to find a dog bite so enter Dr. Russell Dr. Russell according to her nice woman nice doctor very accomplished I respect that she's the only dog expert in the world because we have no idea what that expertise means she volunteers for the job she wants to be here on her profile but she can't explain the methodology what are you looking for in a dog bite she can't tell us it starts a year ago that it's claws it's teeth and then it's claws then it's teeth then it's I don't know and then when you look at each of the different parts of the abrasions she says well I can't tell if I look at each one of them but all together it's a dog bite it's a dog attack that is the masterful expertise that the defense has bragged about bringing in Dr. Russell telling you because she says this is a dog bite she has never been in a forensic situation where she's looked at a wound and identified it as a dog bite before this is the first time the only time she's ever done it and what she says is these are not punctures punctures means it goes into the skin a wound there's no punctures and she's sure because she's an expert so you should rely on her because she's coming in saying she's an expert and she's being presented yet after saying there's no punctures Dr. Lapisada comes in and she sees punctures everywhere it's an animal attack it's a dog how is it no method no methodology no history of this no prior testimony that we know of other than arbitrarily what she says and she says the exact opposite of Dr. Russell why is that how does that happen so obviously there is no science to looking at an abrasion and saying where it came from they give us no detail they give us nothing that we should rely on they contradict each other it's just to look the other way and so we have now the issue of the defense has said over and over again there's no collision there's no collision there's no collision and they had a number of witnesses come in to try to say that and they point to Dr. Scordy Bello who works at the medical examiner's office she tells you that she doesn't see injuries consistent with a collision she's looking at this case for 90 days 90 days the evidence in this case did not stop it continued for two years she knows nothing about the data nothing about the black box nothing about the interviews of Ms. Reed she doesn't know about the DNA she doesn't know about the shards in the arm or in the clothes strike that in the clothes she knows nothing about that so in 90 days she didn't see any lower body injuries she didn't see any lower body injuries which are very common in car collisions but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because she in 90 days saw a fraction of the information a fraction and we know now argument back and forth for days about lower body injuries the suggestion is a car accident can affect everybody differently depending on the angle the scope the speed some people can get plowed by a car and have no injuries some people can get touched lightly and have more injuries and there was the debate about no lower body injuries well ARCA dispelled that and their dummy test that you can have a collision with no lower body injuries they did that for us thank you and so the idea that at the time in 90 days that she doesn't have enough information to stay consistent with a car accident doesn't mean there was no car accident let me talk a little bit about ARCA I don't want to waste too much time with them what expert who's supposed to come to you they're not the arbiter of truth their opinions weigh no more than yours your common sense has more value than an expert's opinion their job is to assist you to explain what their expertise is so that it's a tool for you so that you can make a decision that's objectivity we've heard words like confirmation bias objectivity Mr. Wolf got on the stand and before we even started you have to ask yourself what expert has a court order to text messages and then release the text messages what [02:56:37] Speaker ?: what [02:56:37] Speaker 4: what objective expert uses signal an encrypted app to communicate about the case never used it before hasn't used it since and so when he did his tests he used a lower weight arm wasn't trying to bash him wasn't trying to insult him tried to get him just to recognize that a 9.38 pound arm is less weight than John O'Keefe's metric which would be 11.8 that's all and because it's a lighter arm it takes more speed to create the same damage I don't know science I don't know math very well but that's basic it's basic and he fought me over and over again did he seem objective that he was trying to help you because Dr. Rexall came in the next day and said well you have to adjust to that that's all I asked him for an hour about adjusting just like Judd Welcher adjusted do you adjust it and he tried to talk to me like I was making something up his own colleague had to admit it now it's funny he admitted it before he got through his credentials no sequestration order violations nobody was coaching him but he knew enough to come in at the beginning and get right on that point and speaking of sequestration remember Dr. Russell on her little ride over if Brendan asks you a question make sure you have to look the transcript impede the progress slow down the questioning interfere sequestration orders is so this fundamental fairness for all witnesses not just some and so what happens with Dr. Rentschler we don't know but we do know he comes in here and he tells you that he was not getting information that was helping him the last time he testified he insisted I asked him five times was he getting information that would help him in his testimony not from the defense from this former employer he said no no no and at the end of the examination he reads his transcript and it's yes yes yes and he tells us that he's independent objective I asked him about a lunch and not a big deal just asking him about it and he says I have a sandwich and I stand in the corner until I remind him that we got video footage from a documentarian and he's in one of the scenes and then things change so when you talk about objectivity and they can come in and say Judd Welcher said this and that it doesn't make it so Judd Welcher Dr. Welcher never in any report in any presentation in any testimony to you ever suggested this is how it happened this was how his arm was this is how his feet was he was trying to show whether or not the orientation could this happen with the angle with the height that's all that test was it was no more but what they do is they reposture it repackage it and say it means this when it doesn't and we're going to show you why it's not that therefore we win that's all that is it's semantics Judd Welcher Dr. Welcher never suggested that and his work on texturing data unassailable and so what we have inevitably is we have a timeline that never moves data never changes physical evidence that can't be can't be put in that spot without a collision we have inevitably proof without any doubt without any doubt that on January 29 2022 Ms. Reed was with Mr. O'Keefe and she got drunk she drank she was two to three times over the legal limit and they went to a party an after party and they were fighting they were fighting it was a relationship in decline and he got out of the car and he had a brief window of life left and when he got out and she drove away she couldn't let it go she got drunk she hit him she left him to die it's that simple we [03:00:36] Speaker ?: got [03:00:36] Speaker 4: we don't know exactly how this collision happened but we have a good idea from the physical evidence and we know that it happened can someone have a collision without lower body injuries could I slide 19 please you bet they can we don't know if this is the body position we don't know if this is the exact speed but when it tells us this is viable look at the degree field look at his turn remember his sneaker on that curve that got lodged against the sneaker the stroke he then falls back hits his head counter coup left to die thank you ladies and gentlemen there is no doubt what happened that night there is no doubt who did it you have a very difficult task ahead of you when you consider the evidence and you consider the law very difficult there are rechargers there is second degree murder miss reed when she chose to drive back at mr o'keefe in that night with a 6,000 pound lexus in that anger 75% whether she meant to hit him or not didn't mean to kill him she hit him straight it it it it it it is a plain and strong likelihood of death you would never get back down your driveway if your kids were at the end of the driveway you'd say what are you going to kill somebody you would never do it because you would expect if you drove at them at that speed that someone would die that secondary murder OUI manslaughter she's drunk she was reckless she doesn't even have to know she hit him she doesn't even have to know she hit him but she did she did and she left a man who was kind and generous and thoughtful she left him alone she left him alone to die could I have slide 22 please he is not an it John O'Keefe is not a body John O'Keefe is not a buffalo on a prairie John O'Keefe was a parson and he was murdered by Cameron Reed [03:03:05] Speaker 2: take that thank you all right jurors the next up is my instructions to you on the law I'm not going to do that right now you've been sitting for a long time so I do have to tell you even though you've just heard the closing argument because you cannot discuss this case even with each other all right so we'll send you back to lunch it's going to be a shorter lunch my instructions are long and we want you to be able to get this case to start deliberations today so I'm going to send you back maybe about a half an hour is that enough time for you folks all right so we'll give you a half an hour for lunch and then we'll come back I'll give you my instructions on the law and then the jurors will go out to deliberate I know there are 18 of you we seat only 12 deliberating jurors so six of you are going to be out I can just tell you that you know the odds right and I can tell you it's the Mr. McDermott's least favorite part of his job is spoken so we'll do that this afternoon we do not discuss this case we'll see you in the other half [03:04:16] Speaker ?: right this evening [03:04:17] Speaker 2: I'm very curious [03:04:18] Speaker ?: okay [03:04:44] Speaker 2: council can I see you just a second council can I see you [03:05:14] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [03:15:14] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. [03:16:14] Speaker 1: Thank you. [03:16:44] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.