Investigators On Karen Read Case Connected To Death of Pregnant Girl That Had Been Abused By 3 Cops

From the producers of The Tinder Swindler, Jesse sits down to tell his side of the story.

A shocking true story of an allegedly fake story that some now say might just be a true story, featuring interviews with police, lawyers, journalists, investigators who claim to have uncovered new evidence about this case, and with Jesse himself.

This compelling documentary invites the audience to decide for themselves who is telling the truth about Jesse Smollett.

The truth about Jesse Smollett launches on August 22nd only on Netflix.

Having insurance isn't the same as having State Farm.

It's like showing up for movie night ready for a heart-pounding thriller, but getting a three-hour documentary on lawn care.

That's kind of like insurance.

Insurance may all seem the same on the surface, but when it comes to getting the help you need, State Farm is the real deal.

You wouldn't settle for a snooze fest when you came for a thrill ride.

So don't settle for just any insurance when there's State Farm.

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.

There are probably a few things that you should not do while a jury deliberates on whether or not you are a murderer.

One would be to commit more crimes.

Jury tampering is a big one.

Don't follow a juror home just so if you can see, maybe you could understand their perspective a little better.

Don't do that.

To see if they have all the facts needed to deliberate, definitely don't do that.

But those are very obvious.

You know, some are up for debate.

Some people think it's okay.

Some people don't think it's okay.

And one of that includes cuddling your defense attorney.

One New York Post article reads, Karen Reed spotted canoodling with lawyer as jury deliberated over whether she murdered her cop boyfriend.

There is an iPhone live photo posted of Karen Reed outside of a fancy Boston steakhouse with Alan Jackson from the back.

He's standing behind her, one arm around her waist.

So she's facing forward, he's facing forward, he's behind her, and the other arm is like firmly around her chest.

It seems like everyone's giggling, goofing around, but it definitely seems intimate.

And online, everybody just starts freaking out.

First of all, Alan Jackson is married.

He's worn a wedding ring throughout the entirety of the trial, but now the timing of it all also feels way too intimate.

One netizen says, it just looks so wrong and inappropriate.

It's her attorney.

And I don't know, it just doesn't feel like a normal attorney-client type of situation.

The picture is a lot.

Some try to argue, well, it's because they've been working very closely every single day with each other for years, fighting for freedom.

Geez, can't a girl have hobbies?

Like, can't a girl live a little?

Others say they've become a close friend and a support system.

I'm sure that his wife is totally fine with stuff like this.

I mean, what's the big deal about this picture?

It's not like they got caught making out or anything.

Why are people so crazy?

Others say, I just feel a little uncomfortable because he's married.

But the people who don't like Karen Reid have used this photo as another example of why she's guilty of murder.

How can she be so heartless and cruel?

Karen, how exactly are you paying your attorneys?

You will have your day.

I'm totally disgusted.

Another one reads: This is blowing it for me, for Karen Reed.

This man is full of himself, and he's all over her, and she's loving it.

He's married, but not for too long.

They're definitely sleeping together.

One source, apparently close to Karen Reid, tells TMZ that the picture has been taken way out of context.

The two are just sharing an innocent moment of celebration.

There's nothing on this picture, really.

They're just, quote, goofing around.

But Karen Reed supporters have stated, Isn't it a little weird that the source only spoke with TMZ, a longtime non-supporter of Karen Reed?

The connection to Karen Reid, the source has never been named, disclosed, further expanded upon.

It's also weird that out of the major news media networks, the only ones that are really running with this video, this picture, are the ones that have not been favorable to Karen Reid since the very beginning.

So what if the picture's not even real?

What if it's AI?

What if it's edited?

Lars Daniel, a digital forensic expert, author of Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals, states, I certainly do not believe this to be real.

He says it's weird that there's elements in the photo.

So, near the back of the photo, you see this parking sign, high resolution.

You can read it.

The Audi, the car in the back, high resolution, clear as day.

So, why does Alan Jackson look like a blob?

His hair has clear indications that edits have been made.

Additionally, his arm is kind of warped.

It gets bigger and smaller and bigger and smaller in just ways that just don't allow with human anatomy.

Netizens have also noticed that there appears to be two Alan Jacksons in the photo.

One of them is facing Karen Reed, taking a photo with David Yannetti.

Some argue it's not him and it's a different friend, but it does look like Alan Jackson.

And then another one, who's hugging Karen Reed from the back, so which one is Alan Jackson?

That is crazy.

So you're saying AI?

It seems to be edited by most people's professional and non-professional accounts.

In any event, I do think that the video is questionable in its credibility.

I mean, I could always be proven wrong, but just at first glance, it looks like at least a little bit tampered with.

But overall, the whole thing feels oddly suspicious because the implications of if this photo is real versus if it's fake are drastically different.

So for one, if the photo is real, you might have a questionable picture of an attorney and their client and perhaps a dilemma of professional boundaries and moral ethical questions being bounced around.

Two, if the photo is not real, if it's edited and

certain mainstream media outlets are pushing this photo out there, who would edit something like this?

Why would they even take this picture and run these stories?

How far are these people willing to go to make sure Karen Reed ends up in jail?

Are they the same people that wanted to make sure nobody found out about Sandra Birchmore?

Another high-profile murder case in Massachusetts.

We've actually talked about the Sandra Birchmore case before on this podcast.

The death of Sandra Birchmore, she was 23 years old.

She, well, officially originally, she self-exited in her Canton, Massachusetts apartment, almost exactly a year before John O'Keefe died.

Or at least that's what the Canton PD, the Massachusetts state PD, kept saying, she self-exited.

But once the FBI got involved, it was uncovered that not only did she not self-exit, but she was likely killed by a police officer who had been grooming, exploiting, and abusing her since she was 15 years old.

A police officer that has connections with some of the Canton police officers.

Wait, it was the same police department?

It's a neighboring police department.

So her alleged killer works for Stouton PD, which is a neighboring police department.

But because her apartment is in Canton, they were the responding police officers.

In fact, one of these officers that we're familiar with was at the scene when her body was found.

And then the Massachusetts state police take over, the trooper trolls take over.

You're going to see a lot of people that you're familiar with that pronounce her dead, they investigate her connections with another police officer, and they all say, you know what?

She self-exited.

And all of this is taking place in the same DA's office, Norfolk County, DA.

But what's even more intriguing about all of this is, why did Karen Reed's defense team request unredacted files from Sandra Birchmore's case?

What are the connections here?

We would like to thank today's sponsors who have made it possible for Rotten Mango to support the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts.

They're a globally known cancer research center that also provides support for patients patients and families, similar to John O'Keeffe's sister, who has since passed away from brain cancer.

This episode's partnerships have also made it possible to support Rotten Mango's growing team, and would also like to thank you guys for your continued support.

As always, full show notes are available at RottenMangopodcast.com.

There are references to driving under the influence, alleged physical assault, please watch at your own discretion, as well as mentions of self-exit, crimes against people who are currently pregnant.

This episode is pretty dark.

It is the final part part of the Karen Reed series and there's just honestly I feel like I could make a 20 part series for Karen Reed.

It's just so extensive.

Every everything we've talked about, we can go five layers deeper into all of the nitty-gritty details.

But because I think the main focus that people have been trying to center the conversation on is the connections to all of the corruption in Massachusetts and probably everywhere in the United States.

This episode is also going to include the story of Sandra Birchmore, which we have already covered on this podcast, but there have been lots of new developments since then.

So if you want to watch that episode, I'll link it below, but there's a lot of updates and I'm going to go through them today.

And you don't really need that, but you do need the first three parts of the Karen Reed series.

There's no way that I can recap.

almost 10 hours of video footage for you.

Just know that January 29th, 2022, John O'Keefe, Boston police officer, was found deceased in the snow on the front lawn of another Boston police officer's home, Brian Albert.

Brian Albert has a lot of connections.

This doesn't take place in the jurisdiction of Boston Police Department.

It takes place in the jurisdiction of the Canton Police Department.

They are the first ones to investigate.

Everybody is connected to everybody.

And somehow it seems like the least likely murderer in this situation.

The evidence doesn't really point to her.

There's a few things that are weird, like her angry voicemails, but those are all kind of explained by just sheer logic.

The one that every single person in a position of authority and power in law enforcement in that town has pointed this case as the culprit is Karen Reed, John O'Keefe's girlfriend of two years.

And Karen Reed has gone through two different trials to try and prove her innocence.

And so, this is kind of the summary and culmination of both trials.

We have condensed and combined statements, trial testimonies for brevity's sake, because there's just no way.

I mean, you're talking about hundreds of hours of trial footage that we went through.

So, with that being said, that is the recap.

Go watch part one, two, and three.

And this is the final part of Karen Reid.

Michael Morrissey is the DA for the Norfolk County, and he sits in front of a wall of books, and it makes him look scholarly.

It makes him look well-read, but he just starts yapping away in a YouTube video.

Suddenly, everyone in the comments is rolling their eyes at Mr.

Michael Morrissey.

He says, this will be my first statement of its kind.

False narratives are not evidence.

What the evidence does not show is that John O'Keefe never entered the home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton the night that he died.

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

Zero people have said that they saw him enter the home.

Zero, no one.

Some have, without evidence, pointed to 18-year-old Colin Albert, a nephew of the homeowner, and accused him of attacking John O'Keefe as he entered the home.

But phone evidence shows John O'Keefe never entered the home at all.

There was no fight outside.

There's no fight inside the house.

John O'Keefe did not enter the home.

Colin Albert, the young man being vilified, was not present when Reed's vehicle and John O'Keefe arrived on the street.

This is a false narrative.

When was he saying this?

This is like before trial too.

Okay.

And people are confused because why does this man sound like an attorney for Colin Albert and not a DA?

Because aren't DAs supposed to be trying the case before the jury and not telling the jury what to think about this case?

But he continues, Colin Albert did not commit murder.

How would you know that?

There was no investigation into that.

Were you there?

Yeah, were you there that night?

Check his phone records.

I'm just kidding.

He seems crazy.

Jennifer McCabe, Matthew McCabe, and Brian Albert, these people were not part of a conspiracy and certainly did not commit murder or any crime that night.

They have been, well, I feel like a lot of of them were drunk driving, so that's at least a crime.

So you're already lying.

They have been forthcoming with authority providing statements and have not engaged in any cover-ups.

They are not suspects in any crime.

They are merely witnesses in this case.

To have them accused of murder is outrageous.

To have them harassed and intimidated based on false narratives and accusations is wrong.

The autopsy of John O'Keefe was conducted by a forensic pathologist.

The doctor found the injuries that left John helpless in the cold were not a result of a fight.

That is an entirely false narrative.

She stated specifically that she could not rule out a fight.

It could have been from a fight.

It could have been from being hit by a car.

It could have been lots of things, which is why the manner of John's death is listed as undetermined.

But he continues: We try people on the court and not the internet for a reason.

The internet has no rules of evidence.

The internet has no punishment for perjury, which is also another lie.

You can get hit with defamation lawsuits.

But he continues: The internet does not know all the facts.

Conspiracy theories are not evidence.

Michael Proctor,

the state police trooper being accused of planting evidence outside of 34 Fairview Road, was never at 34 Fairview on the day of the incident.

In addition to having no opportunity to plant the evidence, as has been suggested, Proctor would have no motive to do so.

He had no personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the investigation, had no conflict, he had no reason to step out of his his investigation.

Every suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

But the one part that sticks out most is when Michael Morrisse says this.

The idea that multiple police departments, EMTs, fire personnel, and medical examiner, and the prosecuting agencies join in or taken in by a vast conspiracy should be seen for what it is, completely contrary to the evidence and a desperate attempt to reassign guilt.

His whole explanation is that it just takes too many people to be involved in a conspiracy or a conspiracy cover-up to this extent, to this level.

If that's the case, that means nothing similar should have never happened ever before in maybe history, but definitely not in his department, right?

Because it's just logically impossible, logistically impossible, theoretically impossible.

It is impossible, correct?

February 4th of 2021, almost exactly a year before John O'Keefe is found dead.

So this is February 4th, 2021.

This is the date of another blizzard in Canton, Massachusetts.

Oh, yeah.

Canton police get a phone call from a local elementary school, and one of the teachers failed to show up to work, and nobody has been able to get in contact with her.

Some people might think this is no big deal, but this is very unlike her to do this.

Her name is Sandra Birchmore, and the Canton police are dispatched to do a wellness check.

They get to her apartment.

Nobody's answering the door.

They're about to leave when they realize that her vehicle, which is registered to her, it's in the parking lot covered in snow.

Snow started falling three days ago, which means she has been in her apartment for the past three days.

That would make the most sense, right?

I mean, she's not going anywhere without her snow.

Canton is not really a walkable town.

So if that's the case, why is she not opening the door?

Is she having some sort of medical emergency?

Canton police, they ask the property manager for a set of keys to open up the apartment.

They walk in and they see Sandra Birchmart in her bedroom on the floor with a lanyard around her neck, deceased.

She's like sitting on her bedroom floor.

This is very important later.

Her phone is near her body, likely within reach.

And they, the Canton police that show up, they come to the least likely, least investigative, least common sense conclusion that Sandra Birchmore has self-exited by way of a duffel bag string around her neck.

And she had used her closet door handle whilst sitting down to self-exit by way of asphyxiation.

Even though most evidence does not point to her having any sort of inclination to self-exit, and I know a lot of people are going to say that a lot of the times it is random, it is abrupt.

There are not that many signs to be able to predict, but she's pregnant.

She's planning a newborn photo session.

She literally just emailed a photographer.

She's making arrangements with a friend to take care of her two cats while she goes into labor.

She's doing laundry.

She was about to put her laundry from the washer to the dryer and she was waiting for the father of her child to show up to her place.

The father of her child is Stounton police detective Matthew Farwell.

So this is a nearby police department.

This is not Canton and Massachusetts State Police is the whole state.

So it's like a within.

So Canton is within Massachusetts.

Stouton is within Massachusetts.

It's nearby.

Matthew Farwell is clearly not happy that Sandra Birchmore is pregnant with his child.

I mean, for one, he's married and his wife is currently also pregnant with their third child.

He didn't like that Sandra was going around telling everyone that she was pregnant with his child.

He didn't want to pay for child support and he definitely didn't want to get investigated because Sandra Birchmore isn't just a woman that he's having an affair with.

Sandra Birchmore is someone that he has known since she was a little girl.

She was part of a police program, a police mentoring program called Police Explorers, where it's alleged that multiple police officers, including Matthew Farwell, his twin brother, and their superior officer, Robert Devine, had groomed her and assaulted her since she was at least 15 years old.

She went into the program because it's supposed to help local youth, and she came from a

just a rough background is how everybody describes it.

But instead of being taken care of, Sandra Birchmore was 16 years old when Matthew Farwell essayed her for the first time.

He was 26.

No, she was 15.

He was 26 and she was 15.

He's also getting paid by the police force while assaulting a minor on the clock, getting paid for it.

Near Christmas of 2020, Sandra is of age now.

She's 23 at this point.

She tells him that she's pregnant with his child.

He's clearly not happy about any of this.

He texts her and he just says that he wishes that she would die.

February 1st of 2021, Matthew decides he's having a change of heart.

He does indeed want to stop by Sandra Birchmore's place in the midst of a blizzard while his wife is in the hospital about to go into labor with their first child.

He drives to Sandra Birchmore's home.

He's seen on the apartment, CCTV cameras, wearing a mask, a COVID mask.

His hood is covering his entire head.

20 minutes later, he's seen leaving the apartment, going straight to the hospital where his wife is giving birth.

There's actually a very terrifying photo of him where he's cradling his newborn baby in the hospital, wearing the same exact outfit that he had gone to Sandra Birchmore's apartment and allegedly killing her.

All very suspicious elements to, I don't know, a very straightforward crime.

I don't think anyone would need a police badge to put two and two together and come to the very easy destination that Matthew Farwell should, at the very least, be investigated.

But that is not what happens.

Instead, Sandra Birchmore's death is quickly deemed a self-exit.

Even though Matthew Farwell has strong motives, he was the last one to see her alive.

Multiple tips after Sandra's death, multiple tips are called into the Norfolk DA's office, the same one handling Karen Reed's case.

Friends of Sandra's are calling in saying they knew Sandra was pregnant with a police officer's child, Matthew Farwell.

And when he found out, he was not happy.

In fact, he seemed kind of violent.

He was pushing her, shoving her, grabbing objects from her.

This is what Sandra had told them before she died, putting Sandra in a chokehold.

This is weeks leading up to her murder.

Also, just 12 days before her death, Sandra told her friends that Matthew Farwell came over and was suspiciously looking at her apartment, going through her bathroom, her closets, almost like he was scoping it out.

Those are the words she used.

Wow.

And 12 days later, she mysteriously dies in a strange manner that authorities deem a self-exit, even though Sandra was really excited to become a mom.

Nothing happens for four full years until the FBI steps in and finally arrests Matthew Farwell for Sandra Birchmore's death, accusing him of essentially framing framing Sandra Birchmore in her own murder.

Another thing to note is, yes, after Sandra's death, many of her friends called in tips to the Norfolk County DA's office.

And even when the red alarms did not go off, I mean, it should have, but even prior to her passing, people were calling into Stouton PD to report Matthew Farwell.

Sandra Birchmore had told a few of her friends that she was pregnant with Matthew Farwell's child and he had actually started essaying her since she was 16.

She did not believe it to be SA because she had been so groomed, but they had noticed it was SA.

So they call Stouton and they're like, one of your officers was abusing the police program, the Explorers program, to essay a minor at the time.

This is even before she passes away.

And just like Karen Reed's case, a lot of different agencies were involved with this whole investigation before it goes to the FBI.

Sandra Birchmore, okay, Matthew Farwell is part of Stouton PD.

But Stouton PD has no jurisdiction because Sandra Birchmore is found deceased in Canton.

So Canton PD are the first ones to arrive at the scene.

It's later handed off to the Massachusetts State Police.

Why is that?

They handle most of the unattended deaths.

Canton PD is just too small of a police department to handle a lot of the homicides.

So I think they hand off a lot of their bigger cases.

The Massachusetts State Troopers are the ones that deemed Sandra Birchmore's...

death a self-exit, but also the Canton PD.

They both deem it a self-exit.

Canton PD, the Massachusetts State Department, and even the DA's office is like, yeah, it's definitely a self-exit.

In fact, you're going to see a lot of the same people that are involved.

So the first connection between these two cases comes from

Michael Lank.

Michael Lank of the Canton Police Department, good old friends with Chris Albert.

Michael Lank has known the Alberts for probably longer than we've been alive.

This guy has known Chris Albert since he was 12 years old, and they have been friends.

I mean, Lank says if he's got a list it, he's probably known Tim Albert since he was, what, 16?

He's known Chris since since he was 12.

Tim Albert is the brother, another brother of Albert.

Yes, so Brian, Tim, Chris, Kevin Albert, they're all brothers.

They have a few more siblings.

There's like seven siblings in the bunch, but these are the four important ones.

And three of them are cops.

Yeah.

Oh, no, two of them are cops.

One of them is a Canton select man.

In charge of the yes.

I have no idea what this man does.

Tim Albert.

Yeah.

He'd just, he'd just be posting weird stuff.

He's like the type to post the alpha man lion.

Michael Link has worked with Kevin Albert, another Canton detective, for at least 18 years.

He's known Kevin since he was 14 years old.

He does admit that he considers Kevin Albert more of a friend and less of a coworker, but that the most alarming connection in this friendship with Chris Albert is that Chris is shady.

He sells mediocre pizza.

That's also shady.

But in 2002, Officer Link is sitting outside of a bar.

He's off duty drinking when Chris Albert runs up to him and says, hey, you got to save my life.

My life is in danger.

This is from the perspective of Michael Link.

Do we trust anything, Michael Lank says?

Probably not.

So take it with a grain of salt.

He's saying that they're threatening the entire Albert lineage.

He says, I got out of my car.

I approached these group of men and I pleaded with them to not fight tonight.

I said, you know, there's not going to be a fight tonight.

There's six of you guys.

Chris Albert is here with his girlfriend, probably Julie Albert at the time.

There's not going to be a fight tonight.

Michael Lank says, I observed multiple men walking down the sidewalk in that direction.

And at that point, I got out of my truck, approached the group, and pleaded with them.

I said, guys, not tonight.

You know, he's with his girlfriend.

That's not going to be the fight tonight.

Let's, he says, I tried my best to diffuse the situation, but they get into a fistfight in the middle of the night.

These two brothers, they end up, Michael Lank says, they end up throwing a few punches first.

Michael Lank starts wrestling them down to the ground.

He taps himself in as an off-duty police officer.

He says, okay, now I'm on duty.

And he starts fighting them.

He's punching them.

He's on top of them.

Other Canton police officers have to drag him off of the two brothers.

And he says, I defended myself and engaged in a physical altercation with the brothers.

Wait, wait, wait.

Hold on.

Six people?

He ran into six people.

Yes, but it seems like it's only the two brothers.

Wait, I'm so confused.

Who's at the scene?

Chris Albert, a girlfriend, and four other people?

Yes, but those, I mean, it's like a group of people, but he really only starts fighting two guys.

Of the six people.

Yeah.

Are they trying to fight Chris or trying to fight Michael?

They're trying to, allegedly, they're trying to fight Chris.

I don't really believe it because Chris is known to start shit.

Right.

And Michael saying, that's my friend.

Please don't start trouble now.

Yes.

And they start trying to start trouble.

So Michael starts fighting.

two brothers.

Yes.

And here's.

Is Chris fighting too?

No.

And here's why I don't believe that Chris is innocent in any of this.

And that's just a personal belief.

He seems like the type to start shit.

At one point, Alan Jackson was in town.

I mean, he's in Canton.

He's in Boston because of this trial.

He walks into a bar.

Chris Albert happens to be there.

Chris Albert calls for a buff friend to show up.

And that friend starts yelling at Alan Jackson to get the fuck out of Canton and go back to LA, go back to Los Angeles, big shot attorney, in a very threatening manner.

And so this guy is still doing that to this day.

I feel like in 2002, this is the one that started everything.

He gets Michael Lank involved.

Michael Lank starts pummeling these guys.

He's asked later by Karen's attorney, did you come to Chris Albert's aid as best as you could as a longtime friend of his?

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

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

Correct.

Ultimately, a fight breaks up.

Link is called for backup.

They separate them.

Nothing happens that night.

Nobody is arrested.

And that's interesting because if he is saying that these two brothers started the fight, they would have arrested the brothers.

You don't just attack a cop and get away with it.

That never happens ever.

Well,

interestingly enough, nobody is arrested.

Everyone is told to go home.

Nobody files a police report about this incident.

Until the next day, the two brothers come into Canton Police Department and they complain and they say, I was just randomly attacked by one of your officers who was off duty last night.

And then the two brothers get arrested.

Lank is confronted by this by Karen's attorney, who asks him, Officer Lank, is this an example of you using your position as a police officer to come to the aid of one of the members of the Albert family?

It is me coming to the aid of a citizen who was terrified and scared for him and his family on the night who happened to be Chris Albert.

You indicated that either they made a threatening comment to you or a disparaging comment to you about I don't give a fuck, correct?

Correct.

Isn't it true that what was actually said was you said to them, I don't know who you are, but I'm going to make your life miserable.

No.

Michael Lank, connected with the Alberts, connected with Karen Reed.

He is one of the first to show up at Sandra Birchmore's apartment when there is a wellness check called.

He is one of the few officers that finds her deceased body.

and starts the investigation into Sandra Birchmore's death.

Now, speaking of the Albert family, Kevin Albert was additionally one of the few at the scene of Sandra Birchmore's investigation, investigation, but he was at the scene much later, so he did not discover Sandra Birchmore's body.

He was actually not a big key role in the investigation, but he did go to the apartment complex to gather CCTV data.

Which

they see clearly that another officer was at the scene.

Yes.

Daniel Whitley is a paramedic.

He is also another connection.

He's one of the first paramedics on the scene for Sandra Birchmore.

He's also the paramedic that drove Karen Reed to the hospital after she was Section 12.

He's also Kerry Roberts' neighbor.

When Kerry Robert hosts a neighborhood block party, he brings the fire truck, because he's a firefighter paramedic.

He brings the fire truck to the block party.

Now, what's interesting is, in part of his testimony for the Karen Reed case, a lot of netizens think this guy just does not like Karen Reed.

People don't understand why all of these law enforcement officers have so much hatred and vitriol for Karen Reed without even really understanding.

First of all, if you're a law enforcement officer and you look at this case, because a lot of people have pointed out, why is it that all police officers from across the nation have not come in support of John O'Keefe and this trial?

Because if you are talking about a police officer that has been murdered by their girlfriend, every single cop in the entire nation is going to be posting about it on Facebook.

When a cop goes down, the blue wall stands strong.

Every other cop is posting about it.

It doesn't matter matter if you've never met that cop.

You're posting about it on Facebook.

And you're saying the cops are not across the.

Not a lot.

I mean, you have the Boston Police Force.

They showed support briefly initially when John O'Keefe was first deceased.

And then you had a few local officers.

You have the Canton Police that have rallied around, but definitely nothing like what you would imagine, especially a case this high profile.

I would understand if maybe it's not a high profile case and these cops just haven't heard of it, but I would think everyone from the NYPD all the way to the LAPD would be posting about it.

why is it that they're not is it because they're looking at it and going oh this is a weird investigation but it seems like every single person that goes on the stand doesn't feel that way in fact it seems just like they hate karen reed it's like they have a predisposed condition to hate her when daniel whitley is talking about what he witnessed in the ambulance he does admit that karen reed was a wreck which is pretty on par with what you would imagine someone going through a traumatic incident however he says quote she was crying about having to take care of kids, saying she couldn't do it.

And I was saying, you can do this.

It's not as hard as it seems, which again doesn't really seem that motivating, but he continues, she kept saying, I can't take care of these kids.

They're not my kids.

They're not his kids.

I was saying, well, it seems like you have a good support system.

People who came and helped you in a blizzard to help you find your husband.

And she said, she asked me if I knew Carrie Roberts.

I said, I did.

And she said, anybody who knows Carrie Roberts wouldn't say those things.

And that kind of took me aback a bit.

It seems strange to say something like that after you were just crying because your husband was dead.

Wait, can we break that down for a second?

Yes.

I feel like that was packed.

What does that mean?

He's saying, you've got a strong support system.

You've got this.

And okay, Karen Reed, she, unprompted, does say, do you know Kerry Roberts?

He's like, yeah, I do.

She says, well, if you know Kerry Roberts, you wouldn't say that.

However, I feel like I'm on Karen Reed's side with this.

So is Karen Reed saying that Kerry Robert is not a great support system?

No, and I agree because she's telling her to shut the fuck up the whole time.

Yeah, I mean,

what is so wrong about that?

I don't understand.

And he's saying in the moment when you're crying about your deceased husband, it doesn't make sense.

However, I feel like there have been times where, I mean, I don't know the level of distraught or grief that any type of situation like this has never occurred in my life, thankfully.

But I feel like I do make dark comments like that.

Yeah,

this is life.

What are you talking about?

You're not here trying to get motivational right now.

This is life.

Especially in the moment when you are in this dark of a place and someone says, well, chin up, buttercup.

You're not going to go, okay, thanks.

Like, that's very small talk.

I feel like you're in a state where you're very realistic.

You're like, absolutely not.

I have no support system.

I can't do this.

I can't do anything in life.

What are you talking about?

Do you even know who you're talking about?

That's the vibe Karen Reed gives me, but he's on the stand like.

It's just weird.

It's just weird.

He testifies, the only tone I can use to describe it is snarky.

It just seems that he does not like Karen Reed, and he is one of the very first paramedics at the scene for Sandra Birchmaw.

Yes, Trooper Nicholas Garino was a Commonwealth witness for both the first and second trial.

He is a digital forensic specialist.

That's what he calls himself.

He says he went through all of John O'Keefe's data extracted from his phone.

The main takeaways from his testimonies include the fact that I think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I think he's shady.

Why?

For one, he states that the House Long to Die in the Cold search for Jennifer McCabe, he didn't find that on Jennifer McCabe's phone on Celbright, which doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because all the other Celbright experts, they're like, you pull the data from Celbright just because she deleted her Google search.

You're talking about Celbright.

Most law enforcement agencies use Celbright.

If you can Google something, delete it, and then it doesn't show up, Why would law enforcement agencies use Celbright?

His excuse to that is, well, I was using an unupdated version of Selbright when I extracted her data.

And everyone's like, that doesn't make sense.

He also claims that he didn't find the numerous phone calls that Jen McCabe made to John O'Keefe that night and then later deleted.

Remember how Jen McCabe is like, Yeah, I was waiting for him outside or looking out the window waiting for him to come in.

I was texting him a few times.

Well, after that, she makes numerous phone calls to John O'Keefe and all of them go unanswered.

And then she deletes them.

Why would she delete them?

Because it doesn't make sense.

If they did drive away and she was like, oh, I thought they got into a fight.

So I just, I let it go.

Why would she call?

The netizen theory is that they had allegedly something to do with his demise and they couldn't find his phone.

So she was calling it to hear it ring so that they could find his phone.

Wow.

He didn't find any of those either.

I don't know what he's looking for because he's not finding anything.

He also claims that you can sometimes trick your phone that you walked up and downstairs because remember John O'Keefe's phone indicated that he took multiple steps, like about 80 steps which would have led them straight to the front door side door of 34 Fairview and then went up and down three flights of stairs he says well you can kind of trick your phone to do that which a lot of people including anonymous Apple employees take it with a grain of salt online have later disputed but likely due to strict company policies, they can't really tell you outright, but they express disbelief in the comments that he's making.

He's like, yeah, I mean, a lot of these Apple employees are saying maybe in 2012, but you're talking 2022?

No, you're not going to trick your phone of going up and down the stairs by driving up a hill.

So best case scenario is he is a complete, useless, incompetent, quote-unquote expert.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's the complicated thing about Karen Reed's case.

Everyone uses the straw man theory where they just compile every single thing and bubble it to.

You know when people argue online and you're like, can you have a little more nuance?

That's kind of the thing with this.

The argument is not every single person can be that corrupt.

It doesn't make sense.

It's not corrupt.

Some people are just incompetent, and it's just together.

It's a mixture of corruption and incompetence, and then it's combined, and it creates this.

It's not that every single person is in on a so-called cover-up.

It just seems like some people have no idea what they're doing, and you can't really tell which one.

This is one of the guys.

You can't really tell which one it is.

I mean, there's a few.

This guy, Trooper Paul, you're going to be like, I don't think he's part of a conspiracy.

I think there's no thoughts behind this man's eyes.

Okay.

He's a state trooper.

But this one, it's hard to say.

With Guerino, it's hard to say.

And the timing of the fact that he didn't find the House Long to Die in the Cold search is interesting considering if they had that information for the first grand jury, if they were privy to these details, they probably would have been less likely to indict Karen Reed.

All those deleted calls from Jen McCabe, the house long to die in the cold, I don't know if a grand jury would have indicted Karen Reed.

It just makes Trooper Garino look like a very shaky witness in the Karen Reid case.

Side note, I will say that Trooper Garino has gone viral because whether intentional or not, there is a break.

He was the one that had to read all of John O'Keefe and Karen Reid's messages out loud in court.

Okay.

And at one point, there's a break during the reading of the text messages between John and Karen.

He sighs, he leans back, but the mic is clearly still on.

And he whispers, kill me to himself, which has since gone viral.

With most people feeling a twinge of sympathy towards him, except for the fact that can you even trust a single thing that this guy says when he has also worked on the Sandra Birchmore case?

After Sandra Birchmore's death, Canton PD had the state police come in to investigate.

Trooper Garino is a trooper.

He's a trooper troll.

Trooper Garino being on the team, he states that he did not find a single message between Matthew Farwell's phone to Sandra Birchmore.

Matthew Farwell turned in his phone.

That is so shady.

He's like, I didn't find a single message,

which would make you think, okay, Farwell is not as involved as the internet likes to think that he is then.

Correct?

Incorrect.

The second the feds take a look at this case, they uncover 32,709 messages between the two between December 2019 to February 2021.

That's just what, a year and a half, like two years.

What's like the status of Sandra Birchmore now?

Is it...

He's in jail and it's pending trial.

Because of the feds, right?

Yes.

But there's a trial that's happening.

Yes, he has pled not guilty.

That is crazy.

So you're just telling me, Trooper Garino, that you just miss, you don't even just miss one or two.

You miss 32,709 text messages.

Some of those text messages include the two of them talking about the first time Farwell R-worded Sandra Birchmore.

That is when Sandra would have been 15 years old.

He R-worded her.

That is her very first experience and she happened to be a victim of a crime.

She texts him, I had butterflies so bad the day you took my car, like,

you know,

me too.

It was such a big day.

I still know the day to this day.

So she's saying, I still remember the date to this day.

And this is how deep the grooming has gone.

He says, really?

Yes, that's not a date I'll ever forget.

April 10th, 2013.

Again, very clear evidence that he essayed her when she was 15.

You don't need a calculator to do the math.

Sandra writes, best day of my life, heart emoji.

Me too.

Then later, Matthew Farwell texts her.

If I pushed, I absolutely could have F'd you without condoms from day one.

Sandra Birchmore responds, probably if you really pushed it, I was kind of scared to say no in the beginning, not knowing how you would take it.

So yeah, you probably could have gotten using no protection lol.

More alarmingly, this police officer who has already committed these crimes when Sandra is of age, now that she's an adult, he asks her to engage in acting during intimate relations.

He says that he wants her to have intimate relations with him while pinning her down and fake R-wording her.

He wants Sandra to say, quote, will you say, Matt, stop.

I'm 13.

I'm not ready for this.

Oh my God, please stop.

This is insane.

He also texts her numerous times to pretend that he is an older brother coming into her room at night to have intimate relations with her that she does not want to consent to.

Even that's not enough for this sick walking disease that likes to call himself a police officer, likes to call himself a man or a human.

He texts her a whole lengthy conversation about how he wishes she would have told him sooner that she was interested in him because he would have totally essayed her a year prior when she was 13, 14 years old.

Even after all of that, when Sandra is of age, he will ask her to meet up in Costco parking lots, Five Guys parking parking lots to have intimate relations while he's on the clock for Stouton PD.

He also texts her, quote, I'm gonna sneak away from work real quick.

Quote, yes, I will be on the clock.

If this is not already a steaming pile of motivations for Matthew Farwell to kill Sandra Birchmore, that just goes over the troopers' heads.

There's also these messages.

Sandra Birchmore texts Matthew Farwell a poster board that she made that reads, congrats, we're going to be parents.

To which Matthew Farwell responds, I literally have nothing to say right now.

How could you express that in text when I said I don't appreciate it?

He responds, how far are you?

Regardless of how far, we're keeping it.

Okay, we will need to talk then.

No shit, that's obvious.

I'm mad at how you're acting over a choice we both made.

I'm mad you act like you gave anyone a choice.

Oh, so you didn't have a choice?

Per usual, you make and do whatever you want.

This is coming from the R-worder that R-worded her when she was 15.

He says, you are truly the worst person on the face of the earth.

According to the feds, Sandra's diaries also indicate, as well as text messages, indicate that Matthew Farwell would punish Sandra Birchmore ever since she was a kid for things like getting bad grades, for failing to share her cell phone location data.

He would punish her with really rough essay when she was young.

He also details his ideal situation, which would be her pretending to be 13 or 14 years old.

And he says, quote, you can say no and make me take it full R-word.

After an in-person meeting, Sandra texts Matthew Farwell, it made me really uncomfortable and stressed out and scared when you were next to me because I thought you were going to hit me after you said what you said and took things out of my hand.

That's why I was crying.

I know you wouldn't, but it still scared me.

Which makes sense because this guy is very scary.

A federal search warrant of his devices also found that he liked lots of memes involving necrophilia.

Again, a detective.

He liked one that reads, what does a pulse and a...

destination of intimate relations have in common.

I don't care if she has either.

He doesn't care if a woman reaches a destination.

Or dead?

Or if she has a pulse.

Like dead?

Yes, like dead.

Another one he likes says, when she says, choke me, daddy, and you get carried away and now she's dead.

Another one that reads, if you fuck a corpse on a water bed, it feels like they're participating.

A report from the feds reads that he also liked a meme that reads, quote, glorifying a person who kills and essays someone no one will miss.

Another one shows a woman with a piece of duct tape over her mouth.

And again, this is a police detective.

A woman with a piece of

duct tape over her mouth.

And it reads, duct tape turning no, no, no into

since 1942.

A police detective.

A month before Sandra Birchmore is found dead, she's texting Matthew Farr while trying to compromise, knowing that he has a family, which side note, he arwitted her for the first time a month before he got married to his wife, the mother of his three children.

She was 15.

So this is not a situation where it's like, oh, I know you have a family.

I don't don't care.

Clearly.

Sandra texts him, you don't have to sign the birth certificate if they can have your name.

And I won't move to Stounton.

I won't bitch about holidays, but I would like you to come a few days before Christmas and Easter so you can see what they get from me.

And I don't want you to leave them out.

And three, if you want to try and support them, we can talk about that, but I do want you to see them.

I feel like I'm trying to be as fair as I can, and I want you to be there for the labor.

I'm standing my ground on that one for sure.

Okay, we can discuss this more in person.

It's a lot to think about.

It's so much more than you have ever asked for.

Sandra Birchmore sadly responds, and still less than what any other girl would ask for.

Just two weeks before Sandra's death, adding more motivation into the mix, if you can even fathom that, one of Sandra's friends calls him into the Stoughton Police Department to report Matthew Farwell for essaying her as a teenager.

He texts her, dude, your fucking friend called my job, Sandra.

What the fuck?

Wait, another friend said that

Matthew essayed

the friend?

No.

Oh,

Sandra.

So Sandra had told, and I think the friend is like okay sandra you don't see how alarming this is this is not normal he can't be a police officer calls stout and pd and he's texting her upset and sandra just text question mark he says you told me that no one knew about us yet she claimed we were fucking like you have no idea how bad what she did is i literally can't believe this is even real life like what else do i have to worry about now which other friend will do something tomorrow And just a few days before her murder, there are text messages proving that Sandra went to Walmart to get a copy of her apartment keys, as is requested by Matthew Farwell.

Text messages to Sandra's friends from Sandra indicating that Matthew Farwell came over to scope the bathroom.

All of these are messages that are seemingly missed by Trooper Garino initially.

How does Garino still have a job after that?

Yeah.

Well,

I don't know.

I mean, to say the least, right?

Like, the guy should be locked up too for

in our opinion.

I mean,

how do you miss any of that?

Or just one message alone is enough to put that guy, you know, in prison.

As they say, though, you cannot be fired from the police force for incompetence.

You have to be fired for like

brute over-the-top corruption, which is hard to prove because you can always argue corruption is just incompetence.

Yeah.

All of these messages are seemingly missed.

Trooper Garino's explanation for that is that Matthew Farwell already told him that the messages between him and Sandra Birchmore were deleted from his phone, so he didn't really take it as a big red flag.

He just kind of goes with it.

Which, even then, a digital forensic specialist should know that that doesn't mean deleted, right?

Deleted does not mean deleted when you're a law enforcement officer.

Additionally, he pulled extractions from Sandra Birchmore's computer, which shows thousands of communications between them.

It also includes Matthew Farwell googling and deleting, quote, can deleted iMessage be recovered by Selbright?

Which sounds very similar to how's long to die in the cold.

And then another one, quote, can you revoke consent in Massachusetts?

Both of which he has deleted.

But the jurors for Karen Reed's case don't know any of this when Trooper Garino is testifying, just like they don't know about the FBI investigation into the investigation of John O'Keefe's death because

Auntie Bev has ruled against it.

There will be no mention of it.

She states testimony about unrelated death investigation, Sandra

would result in a trial within a trial with much information being inadmissible, confidential, or offered without a proper foundation.

Elizabeth Little argues that the parallels in these cases couldn't be clearer.

Both cases involve a failure to investigate a law enforcement officer who should have been a suspect.

The reports by investigating officers that led to the improper clearing of Farwell go directly towards the credibility of these officers.

But alas, regarding any information regarding Sandra Birchmar is not allowed into Karen Reed's trial.

One criminal justice journalist states, understatement of the century, but Massachusetts has a serious problem with murder investigations involving police suspects, witnesses, and leads.

So they can't bring it up.

So the second trial,

the defense, they just completely forego a cross-examination for Trooper Garino.

They don't even touch it, but the internet goes crazy.

They don't even touch it.

They go, we have no questions.

Sergeant John Fanning.

Before this case, Sandra Birchmar's case, gets taken over by the feds, it goes from Stouton PD to Canton PD.

Well, Stouton really didn't do anything, Canton PD to MSP, and they decide that maybe we are going to investigate Matthew Farwell, the state police.

They're like, okay, let's look into him.

Who is John Fanning?

John Fanning is a lieutenant lieutenant of the Massachusetts State Police.

Okay, another trooper.

Yes, but he's going to be connected.

Just you wait.

He's going to be leading the investigation into Sandra Birchmore's death.

He's like, Garino, pull the text messages.

He's like, I couldn't find any.

And so he's like, okay, let me investigate what's going on.

Now, what do they do?

Do they investigate Farwell for potential murder?

No, they investigate him for larceny.

In other words, they're going to investigate him for stealing taxpayer money as there is proof that he was essaying Sandra while he was, quote, on patrol.

They're not investigating him for essaying Sandra.

They're investigating him for having intimate relations with her when she is of age while getting paid at work.

Why is that more easier on the charges?

I guess it's better than not investigating Matthew Farwell at all.

And this is a pretty slap on the wrist charge, hopefully.

It doesn't look as bad.

Yeah.

Even when people are lining up, calling in to say, hi, I'm Sandra's friend.

And she told me that Matthew Farwell put her in a headlock and snatched her phone from her and stated, quote, I wish you would die.

I want nothing to do with this baby.

But he says, larceny.

And that when she showed him a sonogram, he pushed her to the ground and said, that's not my child.

I want nothing to do with you.

He says, larceny.

That's crazy.

He believes that Sandra Birchmore has self-exited.

He said, based on the physical evidence, personal notes discovered, as well as the medical examiner's findings and medical determination, she self-exited.

He writes in his report about Sandra Birchmore that yes, Trooper Garino did eventually, eventually discover text messages between Farwell and Sandra Birchmore, but really all it did was indicate that there was a sexual relationship between them.

However, Sandra communicated often with friends and family, and it appeared that Sandra had sexual relations with other men in the months leading up to her death.

There were no threats of harm by any of these individuals, including Matthew Farwell.

Side note,

all of this is happening after Matthew Farwell was caught lying to state troopers about his relationship with Sandra.

First, he told them that they only started having relations after she was of age.

And they've only had relations a few times.

And the last time that they've been intimate was long time ago, which is all entirely false.

And the troopers should have discovered that very quickly on.

And I do want to say, just like the Karen Reed case, why does every trooper have a problem with the victims?

Why does every trooper have a problem with really anyone that's not law enforcement?

Because the way that everyone is saying that, oh, well, Karen Reed was snarky, Karen Reed was this.

It's just like these snide side comments that are just weird to come from law enforcement officers who are supposed to be objectively investigating a case.

When the Canton police write their report on Sandra Birchmore, they dog on her apartment for being messy.

They're like, looks like nobody's cleaned it in muts.

I remember, yeah.

But you know what's interesting about Fanning?

In his free time, this guy belongs to a group chat.

Michael Proctor?

Yes.

The No Nudes

group chat?

Yes.

A year after Sandra Birchmore's murder, Michael Proctor texts, no nudes yet.

And he was part of that group chat.

He's actually a supervisor for Michael Proctor as well as Yuri Buchanek is, and so is Toli.

Fanning was investigated briefly by the MSP Office of Professional Integrity and Accountability, which sounds like a make-believe department, but he's briefly investigated or...

What's his department one more time?

It's the MSP Office of Professional Integrity and Accountability.

That's fucking crazy.

Yeah.

It's like if we had a department of silence and peace and quiet, it just, okay, doesn't mix.

That's what they have.

He's investigated and it he says that he didn't see the text message.

And the investigation shockingly ends with, quote, insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove if John Fanning failed to reprimand Proctor as a supervisor.

Do all of these people still have their job?

Like, has anybody received any punishment?

Yes.

So Michael Proctor is fired, but he will get, he's appealing that.

Yuri Buchanik is put on desk work as well as ATF Bryan.

They're both put on desk work.

What does that mean?

Desk work means you're not on the field.

You're just doing some administrative paperwork until, usually this is what this means in the law enforcement world.

You're on the desk until everybody online shuts the fuck up about this case, and then you can go back and do your job.

Or not do your job, which is what you were doing in the first place.

So nothing?

Nothing.

He did lose five vacation days as well.

Huh.

I know.

Wow.

Brian Tolly has been transferred to a different department.

Again, could easily be transferred back.

They made it sound like it was a big deal.

It doesn't sound like it's a big deal at all.

It seems like the only one that has a big deal is Michael Proctor, which he might even get his job back.

And this guy, Shannon Burgess, which we're going to get into in a little bit.

He's not even a law enforcement officer.

Okay.

What does purple mean again?

Purple just means important.

But not like a, okay, go ahead.

Yes.

Now, Fanning claims that he never saw those group chat messages of the no-nudes yet.

And to be fair, there is no proof that he ever responded, but it's still, it's still,

there's no proof that we know of.

However, there is another strange incident during Karen Reed's trial.

The defense, they know of Fanning, they know of his connection to Sandra Birchmore's case, they know of his connection to Trooper Proctor's text messages.

They know they don't like Fanning clearly.

And Fanning, just like Trooper Proctor, should have no connection with how this trial proceeds forward.

Just as how Buchanik, who is also part of the group chats, he was in the group chats, he is a witness, but he should not be touching this trial.

He should not be facilitating anything in this trial, right?

Because that would be crazy.

There is a strange incident during Karen Reed's trial where a juror, a juror is dismissed.

And according to a netizen comment who worded it as simply as possible because it gets a little convoluted, an anonymous person

is outside.

And they hear a juror talking about the case.

How do they know it's a juror?

I don't know.

Maybe the juror said, I'm a juror on the Karen Reed case.

I have no clue.

But an anonymous person is like, I heard a juror talking about the case.

I'm going to go report it to this random person, John Fanning, a trooper.

Am I going to report it to Adam Lally?

Am I going to report it to Auntie Bev?

No.

I'm going to report it to this random trooper, John Fanning.

Well, Lieutenant John Fanning,

who then is going to tell a court officer.

Then that court officer is going to go tell Auntie Bev, who's going to question the juror.

The juror is going to deny the accusation and say, I never.

What are you talking about?

But the juror is ultimately dismissed.

Shady, huh?

Why would an anonymous person, we don't know who they are, report it to Lieutenant Fanning of the Massachusetts State Police?

They don't report it to Michael Morrissey's office.

They don't report it to Auntie Bev.

They don't report it to a court officer.

They don't report it to Adam Lally.

Why wouldn't they just go straight to a court officer themselves?

The defense has asked the court to get more information from John Fanning about this whole incident, but that is denied by Auntie Bev.

Attorney Jackson actually pops off on Auntie Bev saying, we were told that he was the commander of the extensive security operations in this case.

It's reasonable to conclude from that statement that Fanning was either directly in charge of or in charge of the jurors, which the court is now telling me he wasn't.

We reasonably concluded that this doesn't make any sense.

He's saying it doesn't make sense.

Okay.

We were never allowed the opportunity to find out exactly what his role was because the court refused our request at the time.

Here's what we know about Lieutenant Fanning.

He's among the troopers that one of Michael Proctor's supervisors that was included in the text chain when Trooper Proctor said he was going through my client's phone looking for newts.

He's the source to whom something was reported about juror misconduct.

And when you couple those two things together, it's unreasonable to conclude that he was at least,

you know, within the orbit of security operations governing the jurors.

Like, what does he have to do with the jurors?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's weird.

It's like even when the Diddy case you guys are doing,

if there's something suspicious or something like that, you report it to the court.

You report directly to the authority, not to a state police.

What?

It's very weird.

Yeah.

Very weird.

I mean, if you asked John Fanning, if Auntie Bev was like, okay, attorneys, ask John Fanning, and he's like, yeah, it was my neighbor, and they didn't know who else to tell.

And they were just telling me because they thought it was weird, but they didn't know the rules.

Even that would be weird because of his position in all of this.

And the juror denied it.

I feel like it would still require further investigation, especially on the defense part.

But the fact that Auntie Bev won't even allow the questioning is bizarre.

It's bizarre.

And the defense says there was no evidence presented at the time, as the court knows.

There was no declaration.

There was no report.

There was no supporting documentation whatsoever over the defense's objection that is, you know, very, also, this juror is potentially defense friendly.

Right, right.

Seems to show a lot of likeness for the defense team during the trial.

To which Auntie Bev is like, well, he doesn't have any charge over the juror, so move on.

That's all she says.

Jackson asks for approval and she says, we're going to move on.

And it's so bizarre that a lot of the comments read, she has already decided beforehand that she was going to interrupt him and say, moving on.

Every time she has no answer, she shuts attorney Jackson down and says, let's move on.

Let's move on.

What about the issue at hand?

What do you mean, let's move on?

Which, at the very least, this guy just does not deserve to have a job, in my opinion, John Fanning, let alone in police work.

But it's just suspicious that in both cases that Fanning is involved in, that the state troopers report there's nothing weird about this case at all.

Side note, that's another thing that the feds pointed out was crazy: is that a lot of Sandra Birchmore's family have come forward to say, hey, we did find something suspicious at her house.

So after the police cleared out of her apartment, we had to go clean her apartment and we found her favorite necklace, her prized necklace, which is this necklace with a chain and a pink flamingo.

It was on the ground with clumps of hair.

Why would it be on the ground with clumps of hair?

They're telling the authorities, I'm telling you, this is weird, right?

The feds look at the crime scene photos, which obviously have not been released for obvious reasons, but they say what's even more alarming is that that necklace was not on the ground.

That necklace was on Sandra Birchmore's body in the crime scene photos.

It was broken and it was hanging, dangling off of her neck with clumps of hair.

Do any of these people put that in their reports?

No, you know what they put in their reports?

Quote, trash and clumps of cat fur on the carpet indicating that it had not been cleaned or vacuumed in some time.

Wow.

When the troopers later are asked about the security footage, where you can clearly see Matthew Farwell, I mean, he's a tall guy as well.

He's got a very specific build.

It's him.

His car rolled up to the apartment.

It's him.

They are very cautious with their wording, stating the man is a male believed to be Matthew Farwell.

One of the state officers working this case used to be a former Stouton police officer, which Matthew Farwell is a Stouton officer.

Yuri Buchenick had spent a lot of time in Stounton.

I believe he lived there at one point.

So there's a lot of connections with these small towns.

Do they mean anything?

Do they not mean anything?

I don't think any single person online would be putting these weird dots together, being like, oh, they all lived in the same town as something nefarious, except for the fact that they are all conducting themselves like weird villains.

Yeah.

But following Sandra Birchmore's death, it seems maybe the only police department that maybe a little bit did something.

Well, I don't even want to give them that much praise, but the Stouton Police, they did place Farwell firmly on administrative leave, very quickly.

I think Stouton PD does have a female police chief, like one of the first female police chiefs.

Some netizens were saying, well, maybe it's that.

Some are saying, well, no, she still sucked.

It really depends.

But at the time, apparently, Farwell went to a bar with a local coworker.

He goes to this local bar with a coworker, I mean.

And during that meeting, he tells the coworker that he did have intimate relations with Sandra Birchmar.

However, at no point during that conversation did he express any grief, sadness, or remorse about her passing.

In fact, he told that person that he was very angry with the MSP for looking into him.

He also participated in a joke at one point.

I don't know why there's a joke to begin with, about the fact that she was found on a closet door.

I guess a bunch of officers were laughing at it.

He was telling a buddy?

Yeah.

Another police?

He was like, yeah, I mean, I did have intimate relations with her.

And he expressed no grief that she passed.

And then he was like, but I'm just kind of pissed off that these troopers are looking into me.

And the buddy reported this.

Yes.

And yet, Fanning and the troopers find zero evidence that could point to Sandra Birchmore's death as being anything but a self-exit.

Meanwhile, the Fed say, I mean, this is literally crazy.

It's right there.

Not only is it Matthew Farwell, it's his twin brother, also a police officer, and their supervisor, Robert Devine.

And all three of them have been involved in her life since she was a young teenager and exploited her for nearly a decade.

The investigator for the feds, who combed through a portion of the messages, says he says he wanted to wash his eyes out with holy water after seeing some of those messages.

What happened to his twin brother and his supervisor?

I think they're all put on leave, but I don't know if they've been arrested yet.

The state troopers, they never caught that.

Why would they?

Usually, there is a synergy in the the courtroom that opposing counsel have.

And typically, you would hope that the judge at least appears to be a neutral force in the courtroom, which is why we called father judge Arun Father Arun, because it was like a dad and his kids all fighting each other and arguing.

And then he's like, Okay, kids, calm down.

And I use that term specifically because he never showed favoritism, which is a very important deal.

Even if you are biased against or for the defendant, you need a judge that does not show favoritism to one side or the other because that could cause appellate issues, that could cause justice issues.

It's a big problem.

We have no clue what's going on with the three groups of people if they actually like each other, but usually there is this synergy that's supposed to be preserved.

People think

that's not happening in this case.

That is not happening in this case.

From the producers of The Tinder Swindler, Jesse sits down to tell his side of the story.

A shocking true story of an allegedly fake story that some now say might just be a true story, featuring interviews with police, lawyers, journalists, investigators who claim to have uncovered new evidence about this case, and with Jesse himself.

This compelling documentary invites the audience to decide for themselves who is telling the truth about Jesse Smollett.

The truth about Jesse Smollett launches on August 22nd, only on Netflix.

This show is sponsored by by Liquid IV.

This summer, my family and I started playing pickleball.

It always seemed like the best thing to start the day with until I started feeling just, I wasn't feeling well, especially when I played pickleball in the mornings all night long for seven or so hours.

I wasn't drinking any water, and then to go straight to pickleball drinking plain water, it just wasn't cutting it.

So instead, I started to mix in liquid IV in the morning.

My favorite flavor has always been the sugar-free white peach.

All I have to do is mix it with a 16-ounce water bottle, give it a good shake.

Finally, I have hydration.

I actually pack a ton of liquid IV sticks into my bag because it's just a thing.

When you pull out a liquid IV, everybody crowds around you.

It's like the new gum.

Everyone's like, wait, is that liquid IV?

Can I get one?

And it's all thanks to Live Hydroscience, a precisely balanced combination of electrolytes, vital vitamins, and clinically proven nutrients that transform regular water into premium hydration fuel.

Savor the last bits of summer with Liquid IV.

Tear, pour, live more.

Go to liquid IV.com and get 20% off your first order with Code Rotten at checkout.

That's 20% off your first order with code Rotten at liquid IV.com.

Growing up, kids in my neighborhood would go out to play until dark and parents would leave the house unlocked without a second thought.

When I became a homeowner myself and a dog mom to two very domesticated dogs who are completely allergic to the outside world, I realized that security has become far more important.

Even alarms aren't enough to keep people out because by the time the siren goes off, someone has already tripped the wire and invaded your home.

Only with Simply Safe do I feel safe and just at peace.

I know that my dogs and my family are protected not just from reactionary safety measures, but preventative safety measures.

With Simply Safe's new active guard outdoor protection, you get a system that works to prevent that break-in.

Whether it's someone casing your home or testing door handles, Simply Safe's trained security specialists spring into action.

Agents can talk to them in real time, turn on spotlights, call the police, proactively deterring crime before it starts.

Visit simplysafe.com slash rotten to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan and get your first month free.

That's simply safe.com slash rotten.

There's no safe like simply safe.

There is one viral moment where Karen Reed is sitting at the defendant table and it's gone viral.

She's sitting there.

Alan Jackson is passionately disagreeing with the judge about the verdict slipped.

Arguably the most important piece of paper during the entire trial.

The piece of of paper that the jurors take back to the jury room to determine the fate of Karen Reed's, I don't know, entire life.

He says the fact that there's no box to check not guilty for lesser charges or really most of the charges is absurd.

Auntie Beth is saying, well, it's always been done that way.

If they find her not guilty, they just don't check the guilty box.

And he's like, that's crazy.

You don't think that's crazy?

That is weird.

And she's just not hearing it anymore.

And perhaps Karen Reed smirks at the fact that her life is on the line on this singular sheet of probably an A5 piece of paper and she can't even decide what goes on there.

Or maybe it's the fact that Auntie Bev clearly made up her mind prior to all of this because she's fighting with Alan Jackson.

And then eventually she's like, we've always done it like this.

David Yannetti, who's a local attorney, is like, well, I've never seen it like that.

And then she's like, well, I don't care.

She just does not care.

She's like, you say, I don't care?

Basically, she's like, well, I disagree.

Or maybe it's the fact that Auntie Bev already made up her mind or I don't know what it is, but also she's on trial for murder that she, I mean, in my opinion, and also legally did not commit.

Karen Reed smirks, smiles, and Auntie Bev's head snaps in her direction.

This is funny, Miss Reid.

The courtroom goes silent.

So we're done here.

And with that, Auntie Bev storms out.

What?

In an interview, Karen says that at one point, she just wanted to ask Auntie Bev, the judge, is this a game?

Is this a game to you?

Because she's like, my life is on the line.

Like, is this a game?

Auntie Bev also has a very unique way of running her courtroom.

She likes to sit right next to the witness in a black office chair and she will just swing side to side from her office chair like she's testing them out at Staples.

She looks like she's in a meeting about what people want to do with the communal restroom towelettes, if they want to switch him to a different brand or if they want to stay with Georgia Pacific.

That's the vibe she gives me in the middle middle of a witness testimony.

Her mic is on.

It does not relay directly into the courtroom, but all the live streams can hear it.

And it's just

okay, Mr.

Yannetti.

Okay, Mr.

Jackson.

And it's just, I mean, I don't know what it is.

Also, another thing is Father Arun was very quick with any objections during examinations.

If he overrules the objection, just a quick overruled, it's overruled.

It's overruled.

Or a soft sustained, which is rephrase the question, rephrase the question.

Or a firm sustained.

That was it.

Those are like the three.

Maybe four if he didn't know the grounds, so he would ask grounds and then they would tell them the grounds.

Auntie Bev, this is the new catchphrase out there, which is, I'll allow it.

I'll allow it.

Instead of overruled, it's I'll allow it.

That's her version of overruled.

And now everyone online has made a meme out of her.

They said, I'll allow it.

House long till I'll allow it.

Okay, which kind of sounds mean because she's technically just doing her job as a judge, but that's not what it feels like to netizens.

It feels like this judge just does not like the defense at all, not nearly as much as she likes the prosecution.

It feels like she doesn't like them, even a tiny crumble.

Some netizens have noticed that the timing of her sighs are consistent with when the witnesses are caught in their own lies and the defense team goes down a list of questions that's going to rip them up more.

She's just sighing when the defense has really good points.

One netizen comments, there she goes, sighing again.

Bev's sighing yet again.

The judge is so biased, she's always sighing when the defense is doing a cross.

Oh, Bev, your bias is showing again.

Sometimes she'll sustain objections and not let the defense question witnesses on what netizens believe to be their right to a rigorous cross-examination, to which a lot of legal experts online have even said, I don't understand why she's sustaining those freaking objections.

It doesn't even make sense.

I mean, it's probably causing a lot of appellate issues later on.

For example, when Carrie Roberts is caught in, what can really only be defined as a lie about stating previously that she heard

with her ears heard Karen Reed ask Jen to Google House long to die in the cold or well, hypothermia.

And now she's saying, I misunderstood the question that was asked to me.

I actually never heard her ask Jen McCabe that.

Jackson is like, so you lied.

Auntie Bev steps in and asks Carrie, was that a lie?

Did you lie?

Not intentionally.

And Jackson is like, but you did.

Not intentionally.

Okay, and that's the end of that question.

All right, is there any other question, Jackson, or is that it?

To which a comment reads, why does the judge keep saving these goddamn witnesses?

The lady lied.

If you're a judge, you should want the truth from the witnesses.

During Brian Higgins' testimony, one netizen comments, the fact that the judge prevented questions regarding him destroying his phone is corrupt.

She was very careful about which questions she sustained, and a lot of them about him, I don't know, destroying his phone and throwing it away at a military base, a lot of them were sustained.

Questions would be asked, and he wouldn't have to answer to them.

Or there are other netizens that pick up small things, such as one netizen comment reads: Judge didn't interrupt the prosecutors once during the direct.

Let's see how often they interrupt the defense.

Some netizens think it's less of that and more of, she just looks so over it.

I mean, sure, someone's life is lost, and another one's life is on the line, but quote, she's like the kid waiting for 4 p.m.

to hit to throw everyone out of the courtroom.

The way that when the workday is over, this lady is done, this lady is gone, She's over it.

Not a second more.

Is it kind of crazy going straight from Father Arun's courthouse to this case?

Yeah.

And I, I mean, I don't know because

federal trials are not publicized as much.

But from what we could hear from a lot of the court officers, Judge Arun is actually a little bit more of the patient ones.

Federal courthouse judges are incredibly firm.

They're sharp.

They're crazy, in a better word.

And it seems like there is a difference between state judges and federal judges.

The way that Judge Arun, Father Arun,

would run circles on this woman, either for breakfast, lunch, and dinner without even lifting a single hair on his head or having a single bead of sweat on his glasses is kind of crazy.

And to know that they all oversee cases is a little intense and terrifying, especially this one.

I'm sure there's a lot of incredible state judges, but Auntie Bev, just, in my opinion, is not one of them.

There's another particular moment that the internet has lost their minds over.

It's when the defense is questioning a witness, Auntie Bev awkwardly reaches up towards her face and itches the side of her cheek.

And after a little while, the prosecution objects to the line of questioning.

Auntie Bev quickly gives a big smile and says, okay, I'll see the attorneys at the sidebar.

People think that's a sign that she had for the prosecution.

That's how biased people believe her to be, and that's how crazy they think this trial is.

And it is weird.

It is suspicious.

It appears the only time the majority of netizens have agreed with Auntie Bev is a crash daddy right here.

Crash Daddy?

That's what netizens call him.

He's a crash expert witness for the defense.

He actually worked for the FBI, but the jurors were not allowed to know that.

They were hired.

ARCA is the company that he works for, and we're going to talk about it in a second.

They were hired by the FBI.

They concluded that John's injuries were not a result of a car accident.

He's the defense expert, and people call him Crash Daddy because out of, well,

I'm just look at all these people.

He is conventionally very attractive.

He's very sharp.

He's very smart, intelligent, and he does not seem to hold a bias one way or the other, even though he is testifying as a defense witness.

He's also very intelligent in the sense that he does not get triggered on the stand when the prosecutors come at him for all sorts of gnarly things, and he's got dimples.

So a lot of people have called him Crash Daddy and they have a crush on him.

Now, there is this moment where he walks in to be sworn in and Auntie Bev, she's sitting in her swivel chair.

She's swiveling and she is eating this man alive with her eyes.

No way.

Yeah.

No way.

And the comments read, the only time Auntie Bev and I have been on the same page this entire journey.

Another comment reads, I'll allow it.

Another comment reads, she got no eye contact, but she was chasing it.

It seems like she was into him.

In fact, the prosecutors fought really hard to make sure this man does not hit the stand because his juror appeal is pretty high.

Like I said, he does not seem to hold a strong bias.

He's very competent.

He knows what he's talking about.

And a lot of people say he's easy on the eyes.

I wouldn't know.

I'm married.

But the prosecutors really did not want him on the stand.

Auntie Bev allowed it.

She'll allow it.

And people think there's only one reason she allowed it.

Yeah.

I mean, that is pretty pretty crazy, though.

Someone that credible to say that it wasn't a car crash.

Yes.

Then what else are we arguing here?

It's not even just him.

It's also

honorable crash daddy, Dr.

Rent.

He's also part of ARCA.

People love him as well.

So they brought multiple experts.

Two of the experts, yes.

And they all say it's not a car

crash.

But the prosecutors bring their own experts.

Oh, yeah.

You're going to have a field day.

One that is in comment reads, I understand why people suspect Auntie Bev is corrupt, but I find it difficult to accept it only because she's known that the feds are investigating this case.

I feel like she simply has too much to lose by doing anything illegal to support the DA and the McAlberts.

But at the same time, the netizen feels like if she truly has no undisclosed hidden secret conflict of interest, it just would be weird.

Her conduct is unexplainable.

It's just weird when you factor in that she used to be a criminal defense attorney along with her brother and her dad.

So why the favoritism for the DA, who's brought murder charges based on what is at best the shabbiest car crash investigation since the invention of the internal combustion engine?

It just doesn't make sense.

Does she just want to see Karen Reed railroaded out of sheer spite?

Could she hate Alan Jackson that much for no apparent reason?

Is she somehow unaware that Reed is likely innocent of the homicide charges?

I just don't get it.

To which another net is in comments, I think her and the DA's office, Michael Morrissey, which by the way, her mom, Auntie Bev's mom, and Michael Morrissey's family have history.

We don't know how deep that history, but they work together briefly.

They comment, I think her and the DA's office have an understanding for a long time that they can force the outcome that they wanted in previous cases, which is pro-prosecution because it's the DA's office.

Kind of like we run the hen house, if you will.

Never get questioned, never had to answer for anything, and basically just did things their way, which I believe was the slam dunk plan in this case as well, until it wasn't.

Now I think it's just an attempt to save face and try to act like everything is still the status quo and avoid backing down so as to not look like you're admitting to some prior shenanigans.

There have been other connections made in this case of, I mean, not the strongest ones, but kind of, which is there are messages between Sean McCabe.

This is Matt McCabe's brother.

Matt McCabe is Jen McCabe's husband.

Matt McCabe's brother had reached out to Turtle Boy, who is an investigative reporter and influencer that has been honestly breaking this case from the get-go.

I do think that a lot of people have strong feelings either for or against Turtle Boy.

I think he's a very divisive creator.

His name is Turtle Boy.

That's his online content creator name.

Aiden Kearney is his, I don't know if it's his government name, but that's his name.

But I think he's a polarizing character.

And sometimes that works being an internet personality.

He is

very passionate in what he believes in.

And some people think that that that passion can go two degrees too far.

And I think it really depends on where you draw the line of what do you call witness intimidation.

If you go to Jen McCabe's kids' lacrosse games to go confront Jen McCabe while live streaming and shoving a camera in her face and saying, Why'd you Google House Long to Die in the Cold?

Some people say slay, some people say that feels like witness intimidation.

So it really depends.

There are other things that people have called into question about how he's went about reporting on this case.

All I know really is that he was one of the first people to break the case.

I think with that, I think that's the hard part is he was one of the first people to even get attention on this case.

Nobody really cared about this case much.

Everyone was like, oh, she killed her cop boyfriend.

Okay, moving on.

I see.

And then he was like, no, I think something's weird.

Did he get too passionate?

I guess that's subjective.

I guess that's up for you to decide.

But Sean McCabe reaches out to Turtle Boy, Jen McCabe's brother-in-law, and there are messages between Sean McCabe and Turtle Boy, which, side note, I will say some of the discourse surrounding Turtle Boy, I do think some of it is warranted.

The other parts I don't think are warranted is a lot of people give him a lot of flack for reaching out to people that might be involved in this case, including Sean McCabe.

And they...

They kind of yell at him for doing it, which I think is weird because a lot of the mainstream reporters are not doing it.

And he's doing it and just because he doesn't work for this big legacy media outlet doesn't mean that he is not as committed to finding out the truth as any of these big major networks are.

I think this case is especially frustrating because who do you even trust?

There's nobody you can trust.

Yes.

Nobody to call.

Everyone's like working on the same team.

But I think where people thought he took it too far was he would do these roll calls where he would drive through everyone that was involved in front of their houses and use a bullhorn and people would consider that doxing.

Some people thought that there were children involved that, I mean, not children, aka Colin Albert, but other children involved that may not have really been involved, that are now being put in the crosshairs for this.

But other people say that, well, it's their parents' fault.

It's really where you draw the line.

Sean McCabe and Turtle Boy have a conversation where Turtle Boy asks Sean, do you really have a line to Judge Kenoni?

Which is Auntie Bev.

Sean McCabe responds, Auntie Bev?

This is where her nickname comes from because everyone everyone was like, Judge Kanoni, Beverly Kanoni, and then he's like, Auntie Bev?

Auntie Bev?

It's like a nickname, I guess.

Like they know her personally.

He's like, Auntie Beth, whose seaside cottage do you think we're going to bury your corpse under?

He's asking Turtle Boy.

Side note, Auntie Bev does indeed have a seaside cottage that nobody knew about because you're not supposed to know where judges live.

The defense team blows up the messages on a giant poster board, which Auntie Beth hates when they do shit like this, but I kind of think it's great for visual impact and is slightly a comedic effect if this case were anything other than what this case is about.

But Auntie Bev has to stare straight into those messages and there's no missing it.

Jackson asks, you know, I'm getting old.

I may have appeared before thousands of judges in my nearly 30-year career.

I've never known where a single one of them has ever lived or property that they may or may not have owned.

But Sean McCabe appears to know or appears to intimate that he knows the details of this court's personal life and so does his family.

Which these messages are presented in court and Adam Lally.

Adam Lally is like, wait, hold on.

First of all, these messages are between two individuals that, quote, literally have nothing to do with this case.

They are divorced from the context in which this communication arises.

He's saying, whatever they're saying about Auntie Bev has nothing to do with Auntie Bev or really anything because we exist in a vacuum or as Gallagher would say, a leaf blower.

Accompanying that, though, is a 2022 Venmo payment from Julie Nagel, who was at the house, remember?

Accompany what?

I'm sorry.

The message from Sean McCabe, another blown-up poster board, is a Venmo payment from Julie Nagel, which was

Brian Albert, Birthday Brian's friend, who was there that night.

And she testified, oh, yes, I did see a black blob outside of 34 Fairview when I was leaving.

I did see a black blob.

Yes.

But she's like...

all up in the McAlberts family.

Like she loves them, would probably do a lot for them.

She sends a Venmo payment and it was like Auntie Bev's cottage or something.

It was like Bev's cottage, Beverly's cottage.

What?

Like what at what time?

What year was that?

2022.

So later in the year.

So it seems like they're still familiar with Auntie Bev.

But Auntie Bev is like, first of all, that's not how I spell my name and I've never rented out my Cape Cod cottage.

But people are like, well, it didn't have to be that you were renting it out.

They could have stayed there without paying, could have been invited there, and maybe they bought something and she was paying them back for that trip.

Clearly, these conversations just don't help put faith in the justice system, which is precisely why Alan Jackson, the defense attorney for Karen Reed, is asking for the judge, Auntie Bev, to recuse herself.

He makes it very clear he's not accusing her or even insinuating that she cannot be fair and impartial.

He just says only the court knows the answer to this question.

But the facts we presented unquestionably are such that the public might, and that's the key word, the public might doubt in the court's fairness in some regard.

And that's all that's required for this court to do the right thing and step aside from this case.

Jackson also points out that Auntie Bev has this strange tendency, which he calls a routine practice of failing to act on defense motions in a timely manner.

Auntie Bev says, let me take a second to think about it.

And she takes 15 minutes, comes back to the bench, and she says, I've never socialized with McCabe or any family members or witnesses who have been here in court.

I reject the notion that untrue and unsubstantiated rumors spread on the internet can force a judge to recuse herself in a case.

And that doesn't underscore the fact that anybody can say or write anything and try to make it on the basis of a motion to recuse.

And I think it points out that this motion to recuse is not credible.

Immediately afterwards, the prosecution requests that the defense attorneys be placed under a gag order.

Lally states he wants the defense attorneys to be prohibited by addressing the merits of the case within the media or using the media as a propagandist to advance its theory of its case, to which David Yannetti passionately stands up and he starts explaining: the prosecutors were quite happy with the press this case was getting when it was in their favor, and their minions were out doing their work with the media.

We did not create this media circus, the prosecution did.

Does the prosecution think that if they stuff a gag in the mouths of Karen Reed's attorneys, that these good reporters behind me are simply going to go away?

Do they think the general public's just going to go away?

If you gag us, Your Honor, the extrajudicial conversation will not end.

If anything, it will only intensify.

The gag order is not issued.

But the whole thing is just leaving a bad taste in people's mouths, primarily because Auntie Bev isn't even supposed to be on this case anymore.

She was supposed to rotate.

So after the first trial, she's supposed to rotate to civil cases.

That's kind of how it works in the state courts in Massachusetts.

And she was supposed to go on that rotation, but instead of rotating, like it's normally done, she has decided to extend her rotation to stay on this case.

that she's not getting favorable coverage on.

She's not getting fame or attention or even money.

On the contrary, here, so why won't she recuse herself or just pass it on to the next person?

Why does she want to take on this case so badly?

The only connection netizens could find that were affirmative were, well, 30 years ago, Chris Albert killed a man.

30 years ago.

Yes.

Chris Albert was driving when he rammed into the back of a man in a car named Peter Berger.

He rammed into Peter's car so hard that Peter's car spun off the roadway, hit a stone ledge, killing Peter, who was a Hungarian foreign exchange student.

Chris Albert does not stop to help.

He does not stop to call 911.

He keeps driving, which, side note, people think it's actually rich that they have such strong opinions about Karen Reed.

Even if she did hit John O'Keefe with her car, I don't know if you're the one to be

throwing looks her way.

He does not stop driving.

He does not stop to call 911.

He keeps driving, which triggers a 30-hour police manhunt before he is finally arrested and sentenced to six months in prison.

Meanwhile, Peter's mother wrote a letter to the court saying, I feel numb.

This is a loss that will reflect the rest of my life.

My husband has lost his will to live.

Wait, how is that only six months?

Well, some say that he just had a spectacular attorney to get him off that lightly.

Who's his attorney?

His attorney is John Prescott Jr.

Who is?

Auntie Bev's brother.

Prior to Auntie Bev getting married, she was Beverly Prescott.

And some people argue, well, that was 30 years ago and it's her brother and they take on all sorts of cases.

Are you friends with all of your clients?

I don't know, but it seems like everybody's friends with the Alberts.

But maybe it's just all a coincidence.

I will say the orbit of McAlberts has one too many bad drivers.

So you have Chris Albert, who killed a man in a hit-and-run.

You have Tim Albert, who hit a parked car and fled the scene, leaving a trail of transmission fluid straight to 34 Fairview.

He was not charged or even interviewed at Canton PD.

He just got a misdemeanor for it.

So there's that.

There are rumors that Tristan Morris, Caitlin Albert's boyfriend, was also involved in a hit and run, though that has not been confirmed.

Helena Rafferty is the new police chief after Chief Berkowitz.

She resigned recently.

Well, sorry, retired.

She retired recently because a lot of scandal has been occurring.

Over the fact that she hit an elderly man with her car, an elderly man who was wearing a reflective vest.

Is that confirmed?

Yes, she hit him with her car.

While she is the chief?

Yeah.

Well, I don't think it was when she was the chief, but she hit him with her car.

And then you have Paul O'Keefe, the brother of John O'Keefe.

And normally I don't really like to bring details like this into the orbit of the case.

I will say that a lot of medicines have

deeper feelings for the O'Keefe family.

than I would suspect most would in typical cases where a victim's family is involved.

I think maybe it has to do with the fact that they have since shared a lot of strong words against Karen Reed.

I don't think that's really a reason to hate them or dislike them to any extent, but there is the mention that Paul O'Keefe got into an accident whilst driving under the influence, and it is believed that Karen Reed helped pay for Paul's attorney fees and bail, helped him out of jail when that happened to him.

So there's just a lot, an overwhelming amount of bad driving incidents in this town, many of which, most of which could have been entirely avoidable.

Now, one of the biggest questions throughout this case has been, if it's so obvious to netizens, why isn't it obvious to the O'Keeffes that something is amiss here?

That they're going after the wrong person to get justice for their John O'Keeffe?

Side note, Karen will later say that she believes that it just hurt Peggy O'Keeffe, which is John's mom.

It seems like if anybody's the most involved, it's Peggy O'Keeffe, which is John's mom, and Paul O'Keeffe, which is John's brother.

John's dad seems to have taken a little bit of the back seat to this.

And Karen says, John's dad and I got along really well.

It was actually the biggest betrayal that John's dad didn't believe her.

Some netizens speculate, and this is just speculation, that maybe John's dad is like, well, maybe I do kind of believe her, but I'm not going to go against the family when all of this is happening.

I'm just going to support my wife and my kids.

Nobody really knows.

But as to why Peggy O'Keefe might not have liked Karen Reed, even from the get-go, before John even passed, she says

she just was hurt by seeing another woman raise her daughter's kids is Karen Reed's speculation to it.

Some speculate that Karen Reed is definitely not the daughter-in-law that maybe some mother-in-laws would like.

She's very outspoken.

She's very intense.

She doesn't hold back when she thinks something's weird.

So some people think it's that.

Others say, well, no, I don't think she disliked her.

There's no proof that she disliked her before John's death.

But she does say, Karen Reed does say, so Paul and Peg, John's parents, so Paul and Peg, if you think I killed John, that means you misjudged me for two years and entrusted two young family members in my care.

Then in the blink of an eye, you now think I'm a cold-blooded killer who took your son away?

She thinks it's weird that they automatically thought she had something to do with it.

I mean, just questioning everything about her, but never questioned why Brian Albert didn't go outside as paramedics try to save John.

She thinks it's weird that they don't question that.

As for why they don't, Karen says the only explanation she can think of is it's easier to fool someone than convince them that they've been fooled.

Maybe they're in too deep now.

Karen says about Paul O'Keeffe, he's seen during the trial just glaring her down most of the days.

And she says about that, you can't have no respect for someone and care about what they think.

I didn't do anything, so you can stare at me and get an ulcer over your hatred toward me.

The O'Keeffe's never carried a pitchfork for me until I started getting support.

You didn't speak to any media.

Now you're giving interviews.

You really just can't stand my rising from the ashes.

The only thing that changed is I started to come from a position of power.

Fascinating.

Paul O'Keefe has done an interview after the first trial in which he says, we know what happened.

We know that John and Karen were arguing.

It was towards the end of their relationship.

They were drinking and arguing and fighting.

And in an intoxicated state of rage and jealousy, she just decided that she was going to do something about it, put the car in reverse and ran him down and left him there to die.

She's pointing the finger at everybody.

Everybody's lying except for her, according to her.

And I think we had 68 witnesses testify, and according to the defense, they're all lying and they're all not credible.

I've gotten to know the Alberts through this all very well, and they're all good people.

So, just because we don't believe in a crazy conspiracy theory and we believe that Karen Reed is guilty of killing my brother, people are taking it out on us.

Unfortunately, if you pay high-powered attorneys enough and put enough lies out there, you start influencing people to the point where there's just no turning back.

As for Michael Proctor, Paula Keith says, As for Michael Proctor's comments, I mean, he even said too, they were unprofessional, which we agree with, but this guy's life has been ruined.

And this is where a lot of netizens started turning on Paul O'Keefe, which was something that should have never happened.

He's saying that Michael Proctor's personal phone should have never been searched.

And now his life is ruined, even though those were unprofessional comments.

And I think that's where a lot of people started turning on.

Paulo Keefe.

As for the mistrial, Paulo Keefe says, I guess we were obviously hoping and confident that we were going to get the conviction that we were looking for.

So, as far as the mistrial, yes, it's something we didn't want, obviously, but it's just a bump on the road.

And like I said, we'll do it again.

We'll do it as many times as we'll have to.

I just want people to remember John and want him to get the justice he deserves and that we deserve.

And that is Karen Reid going to prison.

There are so many uncomfortable things about the first trial, like the fact that during the trial, according to two jurors that have come out afterwards, one of the jurors who happened to be a retired police officer told the other jurors I too had been hit by a car once.

They chose him as the four person,

the juror in charge, a retired police officer who had been hit by a car, which is already kind of, I don't even know how he ended up on the jury.

And if he told everybody that he had been hit by a car too, I don't know how he wasn't dismissed, which is all very weird.

Also, at the very last moment, so the way that this worked in this trial is that the alternates are chosen at the very last minute.

It's like a luck of the draw numbers game.

So basically, they have how many?

18 people?

Yeah, well, people get dismissed throughout.

Right.

So they have a bunch of jurors, and you don't know who's the final 12.

Yes.

They will pick it at the very end.

Yes.

Now,

it's random.

And all the

defense-friendly jurors get chosen as alternates.

What are the odds?

What are the odds of that?

It's just weird.

It's weird.

Then, according to multiple jurors, there was confusion in the deliberation room whether or not the jurors could declare a partial verdict, meaning, hey, can we say not guilty or guilty to some charges and then be hung on other charges?

That was a huge thing for the Sean Combs case.

For example, it's like, if you are hung on the RICO.

Verdict, then everything else has a verdict and he will only have a mistrial on the RICO charge, which is clearly not what happened.

But that was the conversation when there was deliberations happening.

So that was the conversation between the jurors on this case.

They didn't really know what was going on, but they said, we all voted unanimously that Karen was not guilty of second degree murder.

We were hung on the other charges, like the manslaughter charge.

We just couldn't agree.

So the most serious one that they're saying she's not guilty of that one for sure.

They expressed that to the judge, or so they thought, and the judge pretty quickly, Auntie Bev, is like, okay, so you guys are deadlocked on the charges.

So I'm declaring a mistrial, which means she's going to get retried for all the charges, including second-degree murder.

The defense didn't know this until after the mistrial is declared.

A few of the jurors called the defense themselves and said, Something weird happened.

That is crazy.

Okay, to clarify, basically, she got charged a bunch different charges.

Yes.

The most serious one is second-degree murder.

And the jurors say, no, she's not guilty on that one.

Unanimously.

Right.

The rest were fighting.

We're fighting.

We're hung.

So the right thing to do is remove that for the next trial.

Yes.

So, just retry her for all the other charges.

Manslaughter, things of that nature.

But instead, they did the whole thing again.

Yes, which the defense have tried to take to the superior courts as double jeopardy, which means you cannot be charged for the same crime twice.

Yes.

And they said to prove that, we need to bring the jurors in and make sure that they unanimously voted because that's what the jurors, like five jurors, have come out to us and said, That's what they said.

So, we need to bring in all 12 jurors and make sure.

And the judge was like, I'm not doing that.

That's crazy.

I'm I'm not doing that.

Which has caused a mistrial.

That is why we have a second trial in this case.

And the court presence, I mean, even during the first trial was intense.

People,

I guess in a dark humor sense, called it like a gender reveal party.

Outside the courthouse, you have a sea of people wearing pink in support of Karen Reed and blue, obviously for blue for cops in support of justice for John O'Keefe, which Karen Reid has expressed her confusion because justice for John O'Keefe is not exclusive with supporting Karen Reid.

She believes that she is also fighting for justice for John O'Keefe because he's not going to get justice unless whoever killed him is discovered.

And she's like, that's not me.

So you're not getting justice by putting me in jail.

I don't understand.

Others are saying, no, you did it.

So you need to go to jail.

And there has just been lots of people.

People are

outside the courthouse eight hours a day wearing t-shirts, holding signs, and they will live stream it outside the courthouse, put it on speakers, and they sit there with lawn chairs.

They'll bring snacks, coolers.

It's almost become a thing in Boston, Massachusetts, where you don't bring up Karen Reed's name at the dinner table because it's that divisive.

Parents and children have stopped talking to each other.

Friend groups have dissipated.

They said it's worse than talking about politics.

And Paul O'Keeffe hates that.

He says, unlike most people accused for murder and sued for wrongful death, Karen Reid has embraced her celebrity in outsized ways.

This intensive media campaign to influence potential jurors compounds the O'Keeffe's family's terrible loss loss while delaying and denying her accountability.

To which Karen Reed fights back, anyone in my position who has been falsely accused would be shouting from the rooftops.

First of all, I don't want to be here.

It can be the John O'Keeffe show.

It can be the O'Keeffe family reunion.

But if you think for a second that anyone has fought harder to find the truth about what happened to John and to enlighten everyone about what happened to John harder than me, then you're wrong.

Witnesses have expressed being terrified, the Mick Alberts included.

They say they're being harassed.

They're being followed by influencers.

That's what they call everyone.

To lacrosse games to be questioned on whether or not they Googled How Slow to Die.

They're talking about Turtle Boy.

Also, Turtle Boy has been charged for witness intimidation.

Now, I do think, regardless of what people think about Turtle Boy, a lot of netizens agree, I don't know if it goes into witness intimidation category.

I don't know.

Okay, I don't know.

Maybe we should do a deep dive.

Probably not.

It's just, there has been so much developing in that sphere, but Brian Tolley was the one to lead the investigation into Turtle Boy.

I think that's another reason that a lot of netizens are questioning whether or not he should have been charged.

Again, even if you think what he did is witness intimidation and witness harassment, the fact that Brian Tolle is leading that investigation

with such passion and fury that you did not see for the John O'Keefe investigation makes netizens feel wary about the situation.

Yeah, it's crazy.

That's why there's so much nuance to this case.

It's like you can dislike Turtle Boy.

You can love Turtle Boy, but still disagree or agree with the investigation.

There's so many things.

The prosecutor also states, I mean, there's just so much going on there.

It's a lot.

Karen Reed says, it's impossible for me to have any sympathy for these witnesses.

Definitionally, is it harassing witnesses?

Yes, they're witnesses against me in my prosecution, and he is yelling things at them, and he is going up to their front doors and ringing their bell.

Yes, but they shouldn't have been witnesses.

They should have been suspects.

So it's not that cut and dry.

So there is that argument as well of like, is it witness intimidation and witness harassment if they're not really witnesses?

I mean, they're definitely not good witnesses.

I don't know where you draw the line of witnesses, but they're not good witnesses.

The Canton police officers have also reported feeling petrified, shaking in their boots.

One Canton officer says, no one in this town will care about us until one of us gets murdered.

Even then, half the town will probably celebrate that.

Canton officers report that the department suffers significant pressure due to the proliferation of misinformation, witness coercion, and a lack of support from elected officials.

As per an audit into Canton PD, officers report that, quote, certain individuals referred to as influencers are spreading false narratives about officers involved in the O'Keefe and Birchmore cases without substantiating any evidence.

They operate without adhering to journalistic standards or rules of evidence.

Don't talk to us about rules of evidence, leaf blower Gallagher.

Solo cup Gallagher, okay?

Rules of evidence, gaining notoriety by circulating unfounded unfounded narratives in pursuit of fame and viewership.

Two things can be true at once, I guess, right?

But I don't think Gallagher has any leg to stand on if he's the one saying that.

If netizens were already not side-eyeing Auntie Bev, the day before the second trial is to begin, Auntie Bev decides Karen's team can no longer point to Colin Albert or anyone for that matter as their defense.

So when you bring your case in chief to the judge, they have to approve it.

You can't just say, I'm going to go in there and I'm going to say whatever I want to say to say that my client is not guilty.

You have to say, this is our presentation of how we're going to go about things.

This is how we're going to prove it.

These are the witnesses that we're going to bring or a list of witnesses that we think we're going to call to the stand.

And they're important for these reasons and they help with these different arguments.

The day before, Auntie Bev is like, you're not doing that anymore.

The third party culprit defense, you're not doing it anymore.

The day before the second trial.

No reasons?

She's just like, there's no proof.

So you can't point your finger at Colin Aubrey.

Or really any other third party.

So the defense has to switch gears, and all they can focus on is corruption of the investigation, which, to be fair, is not that hard to do, but it is strange that it happens so quickly before the second trial.

The prosecutors bring in Hank Brennan.

He is a special prosecutor, meaning he's not part of the DA's office.

He's not a prosecutor.

He's a criminal defense attorney.

He's brought in by the DA's office to act as a special prosecutor for this specific case.

You do this a lot when

you are going into very niche fields.

you'll often see it with like um

i mean most really well-equipped das offices have people that are very well versed in financial crimes a lot of like federal u.s attorney's offices have people that are well versed in financial crimes crypto but sometimes like those are the times you would bring in like a special prosecutor when you're like whoa we're dealing with something that would take us a long time to even learn about the thing that we're dealing with.

They bring him, or you bring them in when you're going up against a very strong team.

That's why a lot of people thought that the Diddy case, they should have brought in a special prosecutor to go up against some of these very high-powered criminal defense attorneys that have a lot of flair, that have a lot of charisma on their side.

They bring in Hank Brennan.

I don't know if he was the one to bring in.

Really?

I'm just going to be so real with you.

He is a very well-known, well, well, well,

was a well-respected criminal defense attorney prior to this case, but he got destroyed.

Lally sucked.

And I say this: like, I think anyone on the internet that's like, I could have done a better job than these people, I find that to be really bad arguments most of the time because you don't really know what a prosecutor goes through.

It's frustrating, yeah.

But sometimes I read comments online and I'm like, I do think you could have done a better job than Lally.

I do think so.

Because I'm like, I don't know what Lally was doing, but you, your comments make sense in my head.

Yeah, Lally sucked.

Hank Brennan sucks less, but he is so aggressive to the point of just coming off angry and hostile for no reason.

Just aggressive, just so mean for what?

I don't know for what.

Why are you being like that?

That's the feeling Hank Brennan gives.

Yeah.

It seems like there are, a lot of netizens have psychoanalyzed that he has sour feelings, that the defense team, because he's a criminal defense attorney at the end of the day, defense team, they're getting a lot of star power, lots lots of praise, and people are making memes and thirst traps of them.

And he's just hanky spanky.

And he's upset that he's hanky-spanky.

The question ultimately is, is Hank Brennan going to be worth it?

Because between November of last year and June of this year, the special prosecutor is getting paid more than $500,000 in legal fees alone from taxpayers, close to $600,000, $566,000.

In half a year.

Yes.

And that's not even, I mean, first of all, the taxpayers don't get a choice.

And that's not including all of the different experts that are paid, the other prosecutors, the paralegals, all of the administrative fees.

That's just Hank Brennan is getting paid nearly $600,000 in half a year.

It's crazy.

So locals are mad because what about the other families that want justice?

DA's offices have budgets at the end of the day.

that they can spend on cases.

Why are they blowing like a third of their budget on this case for a retrial that nobody asked for?

The defense team team also adds new additions to their legal defense team.

And if you're wondering, how can Karen afford it?

She lost her job.

She lost her, she sold her house, is paying for it with her house, got rid of her 401k, is paying for that.

I mean, she's like $5 million in legal debt, technically.

I mean, Jackson and Little alone said for the two trials, typically for any other client, they would have charged like $10 million upwards.

But they are deferring their legal fees.

They haven't really gotten paid by Karen Reed.

All of the new attorneys have also come in pro bono.

Wow.

That also feels like an indication of how they feel about her innocence.

Victoria George is one of the more interesting additions to Karen's legal team.

She's an employment lawyer.

So people thought that was weird.

Why is an employment lawyer getting on this case?

Victoria George has very interesting insight to provide for Karen's legal defense team.

It's the fact that she was on the jury for the first trial.

She became an alternate juror at the end, but she was allowed on the jury because she's an employment lawyer.

She has, she didn't know anything about the Karen Reed case.

What?

She was on the first jury.

How does that work?

Yeah.

She was on the first jury.

And then afterwards, she's like, can I be on your team?

She called the defense team and had conversations about, hey, I'm telling you, something was weird.

And as an attorney, as someone that upholds the legal justice system to a very high degree, I just thought you should know.

And there were first jokes about, like, you know, you should be on the,

you're still licensed to practice, right?

Because at that point, she wasn't practicing as much.

She has children and she was at home taking care of them.

And she was like, I mean, I technically, I am still licensed to practice.

And they're like, huh.

So then eventually she went on this case pro bono.

That is insane.

Yes.

And she probably knows the case inside out too after the whole trial.

But more than that, with the Combs case, as I've told you about, a lot of people spend a lot of money hiring jury consultants, which are attorneys who will just tell you what rings well with jurors.

She's been a juror.

She can tell you what hit well and what didn't.

That's so crazy.

Wow.

She says, if I, as a lawyer, am too afraid to stand up for what I believe in, who will?

What happened to John O'Keeffe was a tragedy, but just because something is sad doesn't mean that the person in the defendant's seat is responsible.

I can feel bad for his family and believe that she's not guilty at the same time.

Then you have Robert Alessi.

Everybody loves Robert Alessi.

This defense team is fascinating.

It's

people love this defense team.

I think with the Diddy Case dream team, yes, maybe a bigger dream team, more high-powered dream team than Karen Reed's legal defense team, but they were not as lovable.

Like they were charismatic, but it was always with an undertone of like, ooh, gosh, oh

But this team, people love this team.

I mean, there are thirst traps for this team.

Every single person, they love them.

Robert Alessi is a New York-based attorney.

So he's in Boston for the whole second trial for this.

And interestingly enough, he is a very random addition as well, considering his legal background is primarily in the environmental financial law field in New York City.

So why is he suddenly in Boston fighting a murder trial?

It has been reported that his daughter asked him to look into the case and that he was looking into it.

And he's like, Oh, wait a minute.

I know David Yannetti.

He and I are besties.

So then David Yannetti ends up calling him and is like, I need some advice.

I need advice.

You were a great trial attorney.

Tell me something.

And then he says, You know what?

I want to join pro bono.

So he goes in getting paid nothing as well.

Now, I know some people that are cynical are going to say, well, most law firms do require attorneys to take on a certain percentage of pro bono cases.

However, however,

let's live in this land for a second, okay?

I like this land.

There are also nine law clerks that joined the team for the second trial.

They are also working pro bono for free.

Wow.

The second trial is a bit more fast-paced than the first one.

Most of the McAlberts do not testify the second time around.

The prosecution does not call them.

Trooper Proctor does not testify the second time around.

And even then, it doesn't stop the rather dumb testimonies provided by parties involved, such as when Jen McCabe can't answer any question at all about really anything and has a hard time showing that she does not have pure venomous hatred for the defense team.

I mean,

I don't know why these people have such a hard time just not hating every single breathing person in the courtroom.

Every single prosecutor's witness just seems like they're filled with hatred.

It's so unlikable.

It's hard to even resonate with anything they say.

They're so defensive.

They want to be smart, Alex, but it comes off like, Are you okay?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Gosh, it's like.

I guess when you're shady, you just can be transparent and open about things.

No.

Or, like, the time Buchanik starts arguing that he doesn't know what certain words mean in the English language because he speaks three languages.

So he asks Attorney Jackson if he can kindly hand him a Webster's dictionary.

And Attorney Jackson is like, Are you fucking kidding me right now?

You want a fucking dictionary?

And then they have a very tense standoff.

I mean, there are a lot of ridiculous moments in both the trials combined, and we would probably be here for the next 10 weeks if I covered all of them.

Attorney Jackson is also very upset and confused that Michael Proctor was not even called as a witness for the second trial by the Commonwealth.

He says, you guys were so embarrassed of Michael Proctor, you couldn't even put him on the stand.

I thought it was a glaring error on the Commonwealth's part to not call certain witnesses, including Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Nicole Albert, Matt McCabe, and Chris Albert.

They didn't want them to be subjected to a very vigorous cross-examination because the Commonwealth knew that they would not withstand it.

And also, because Michael Proctor has been fired.

President Patrick McNamara, which is the president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts, the Union for the Troopers, he threw his support behind Proctor, saying, Our homicide detectives here in Massachusetts are arguably the best in the country.

Our solve rate is indicative of that.

At this point, it's just a matter of understanding your audience.

That's the exact problem.

Everyone is wondering if your solve rate comes from the fact that you just throw everyone in jail, regardless of the evidence, and then you look for nudes for them.

Boasting about how great your solve rate is not what we want to hear right now.

He does not read the room.

He continues: Trooper Proctor has been the subject of personal attacks from the criminal defense attorneys and the media for doing their jobs.

They did this work without favor.

They follow the evidence.

This is true in the case of the investigation of the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe.

Trooper Proctor has personally been defamed in the media and in court.

We stand with you, Mike, as we do all state police detectives, which if he has been defamed, hit everyone with a defamation lawsuit.

Let's go.

Just do it.

That's crazy.

He really should have just stayed quiet.

Okay, because this is, I mean, I mean, I guess that's a little rich coming from someone who makes like 10 hour long videos.

Is there like any

police officials?

That's coming out and exposing what's going on or even take a different stance because it seems like everyone's like linking arms, backing each other.

Has anybody say something?

Or briefly, and then they went back.

Yeah, we're gonna get there.

But soon after that, Patrick loses his re-election for the police trooper union, and I guess that's the nicest thing that could have happened to him.

ABC News asks Trooper Proctor about getting fired.

He says, I just remember dropping to my knees and laying on my lawn crying.

I couldn't even talk.

I was in complete hysterics.

And I remember my mother being like, what?

And I kind of gathered myself and i'm like they relieved me of duty he starts tearing up emotional about the hardest moments of his life what really got me was my union rep came over to my house and picked up all my uniforms and the one time i broke down was putting my class a uniform you go through a six-month police academy and you're very proud to put on that uniform that's tough he says that and he wants us to feel bad yes I don't know any trooper that has been punished for personal text messages on their personal phone, let alone fired.

Are these people okay?

He continues.

She thinks he got fired because of a text message.

Not what he did.

No.

It's because of, oh, I sent a little text.

I got fired.

Yeah, they were just found on my phone.

Yeah.

You know, have you ever text something?

It means nothing.

It means nothing.

These text messages are juvenile as they are.

It's not me as a person.

I vented after being involved in an investigation of a police officer and used words that I regret.

People see those text messages and they instantly jump to a conclusion about you and that you must be biased.

You must be a bad person and i'm sure many other names i could see how people make that leap because that's all they know about me they don't know who i am they don't know how the kind of person that i am they just see those text messages and they immediately just assume i'm a bad person he has since appealed the firing he says i still love the job i still want to be a trooper and i'm fighting for it

kelly dever kelly devor is a boston cop which is the same force as brian albert and john o'keefe but she used to work for the canton police department specifically the night that there was a call made where John O'Keefe was found in the snow.

So a former Canton cop.

She walks up to the stand and she looks a lot younger than all the other officers.

Is she the one that Sean Goode called to replace his position?

Yes, in the dispatch.

Yes.

He's like, I got to go.

Yeah.

She comes in.

And maybe mid-20s, late 20s, she gets up on this stand and she explains she was a patrol officer.

She was working the night shift.

She took over dispatch for Sean Goode.

And Attorney Jackson is asking her, when Sean Good instructed you to take over dispatch, explain what that meant.

It meant I walked inside and I sat down in a dispatch room.

You're aware that Sally Port had a camera, a security camera?

It would make sense because that's where we bring prisoners to drop them off.

Well, more than just making sense, I'm asking you,

do you recall that it had a camera that serviced the garage?

It's where we brought prisoners, so there would be cameras, yes.

Context on Sally Port, it's the garage where Karen Reed's car was brought in and held in evidence.

And people think that's where the evidence taillight, the taillight was taken apart and then brought to 34 Fairview and then scattered in the snow.

So it's very important.

They referred to.

Yes, inverted footage.

Yeah.

Oh my gosh, you're listening.

Okay.

So she's saying, yeah, I mean, so there would be cameras.

Jackson is like, so you're saying there would be cameras.

I'm asking you, were there cameras?

According to the media, yes.

I've seen the footage.

So yes, there were cameras.

The judge stops her and tells her, so I'm going to strike that officer.

You have to answer the question based on your own independent memories.

And Kelly looks at Auntie Bev.

Uh-oh.

If you don't have your own independent memories, that's fine, but you can't reference what you know from the media.

She's making faces straight up?

Yeah, she's two seconds away from fully rolling her eyes to look inside of her skull.

All right.

There were cameras inside Sally Port.

Miss Dever, do you want to be here today?

I have no relation to this case.

I didn't ask you that.

I asked you if you want to be here.

Kelly Dever pauses before dramatically stating,

I'm put on this stand in a murder trial.

I don't know why I'm here.

I have no connection to this case.

This is honestly a bit more hostile than some of the more important key witnesses.

Her interactions with the defense team feel so scathing than even some of the more McAlberts, okay?

Some of the McAlberts, they try to hide it, or some of the cops that are more heavily involved.

But the confusing part in all of this is in trial two, she is not a prosecution witness.

She is a defense witness.

The defense called her to the stand to testify.

Why?

Because Officer Dever told FBI agents that she saw ATF Brian

and Chief Berkowitz in Sally Port for a wildly long time near Karen Reed's car.

What were they doing for a wildly long time in Sally Port near Karen Reed's car?

That is crazy.

So what are you saying?

During the first trial, she's kind of like forced to speak.

During the first trial, she was never called to the stand.

So this attitude is from the second trial?

Yeah.

She was never called to the stand at the first trial.

The second trial, she comes and she's huffing and puffing.

And the defense is just trying to get her to relay her statements that she made to the FBI, which is, you told the FBI that they were near Karen Reed's car and Sally Port for a wildly long time.

Yeah, but why is she huffing and puffing?

She just truly, oh, okay.

Oh, yeah.

just wait.

The defense is like, you have no idea why you're here?

You've never talked to me.

Nobody on the defense seems to talk to me since prior to the first trial, which she did not testify in.

So I don't have any idea why I'm here.

No clue whatsoever, as you sit here, why you might have been called to the stand?

No.

Are you uncomfortable testifying?

No, it's part of my job.

There is an indication that things are not going to go well because Jackson starts asking Kelly Dever, and you understand the oath.

Yes, I do.

What is the oath?

The oath is to tell the truth.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth, correct?

Objection sustained.

Did one of the monitors that you had looked at when you had access at the dispatch area, because remember, she took over dispatch and they have a monitor overlooking Sally Port, shows the video feed from the Sally Port garage.

So as I already said, I don't remember where in dispatch the screen with the cameras was.

There was a camera in Sally Port.

If I'm going to make the assumption, then yes, of course, but now that's an assumption.

I'm not asking you for an assumption.

I'm asking you, did one of those feeds, do you recall or not, there was footage that you could see a monitor on the dispatch area?

I'm gonna go with yes.

So

I don't know what that means.

So what do you mean?

You're gonna go with yes?

Is your answer yes?

Yes.

Did you observe anything unusual that stood out in your mind that occurred, pardon me, you know, in the Sallyport area where you were on that shift?

So we've discussed this previously.

I can't make that statement on the stand because I've been provided information released by the defense that it was not a memory, that it was a distorted memory.

Therefore, I can't state it because at that point, it would be a lie.

I cannot make that statement that you're wanting me to make on the stand because I've been advised it would be a lie.

So, she's saying, What I said to the FBI was a false memory.

The fuck?

She's saying, I never saw Chief Berkowitz or Brian Higgins in Sally Port.

It was a false memory.

What?

Like, how did you even come up with that?

Because she said that she had clocked out before the the time that she would have seen them.

But clocking out doesn't mean anything.

And also, those records can probably be fudged.

I don't know.

Don't ask me.

Which she's saying, it was a false memory.

Which the defense is like, okay, first of all, a police officer with false memories should not be a police officer.

Because what are you doing?

Throwing people in jail over false memories?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Miss Dever, I've never asked you to make a statement one way or the other on the stand.

I'm asking you an open-ended question.

Given factual information, that makes it so that I know I did not know.

So the answer is no.

Correct.

But that doesn't make sense because why did you tell the FBI then?

Were you advised lying to those officers, the FBI officers, would have been a crime?

So it was a willing conversation.

I've spoken with their legal team because of the fact that I was providing factual information that showed a statement of mine was a false memory.

It was not a lie.

Therefore, I made it in good faith and I've retracted given information that it could not be accurate.

Ms.

Everett, did you understand my question?

Yes, I did.

You threatened to charge me with perjury during our phone call prior to the first trial if I didn't lie on the stand right now.

I'm telling you, I did not see anything factually.

Did they advise you of anything, any consequences for lying to them, to lying to FBI agents?

Because the defense is saying it's so interesting that all these people, they're a little more accurate when they're talking to the feds, huh?

Because they know that they've got nobody in the feds and the feds don't care.

The feds are going to arrest them.

Not the feds don't care.

The feds have also been the subject of a lot of corruption allegations, but in terms of when they're investigating this case, they don't really care.

Did they advise you of any consequences?

So we had a willing conversation?

That's a yes or no.

I don't recall.

Auntie Beth steps in.

Okay, so there's your answer.

And again, it's like, are you shielding these witnesses?

As a trained law enforcement officer, are you aware that it is a crime to lie to certain other law enforcement agencies?

When you have intent to lie, yes.

Did you tell those law enforcement agents on August 9th of 2023 you saw Brian Higgins and Chief Berkowitz go into Sally Port together and alone with Karen Reed's SUV for a wildly long time?

That was my recollection at the time.

What's even more interesting, and you'll see by the line of questioning, is that after she moves to Boston Police Department, the commissioner, the man who runs Boston PD,

Michael Cox, calls this random patrol agent or patrol officer, Kelly Dever, into his office, and then she recants her statement.

Oh my god.

She calls the FBI and is like, so...

I say Boston has like thousands of police, right?

3,000 officers, and it's very rare that the commissioner talks to anyone, especially not on a detective level.

Yeah, she's just a patrol officer.

Wow.

Did you have any conversation with anybody in the commissioner's office at the Boston Police Department?

Not about anything malicious.

I didn't use the word malicious.

Why do you say malicious?

I had a conversation, but it was my department saying, regardless of what I need to say on the stand, they support me.

It is a niche but unescapable feeling.

I call it the grocery run.

It's the grocery panic where you have to throw on mismatching shoes to run outside, help your mom, or help your partner carry in all the bags of groceries.

Or it's like when you try to carry in as many bags as physically possible so you only have to make one trip.

We've all been there, but the grocery panic doesn't have to be this reoccurring thing.

When life is full, time is tight, Instacart helps you stay on track.

Instacart is more than a grocery app.

It's a care company that works around your schedule.

You can get groceries, household essentials delivered in as fast as 30 minutes.

Whether you're hosting a barbecue, getting back from a trip, or juggling back to school chaos, I mean, there's so much chaos going on all the time.

With reliable shoppers and a platform you can count on, Instacart delivers quality and convenience without cutting corners.

I especially love Instacart whenever I'm hosting for my family.

I can get all of my groceries, even my cooking ingredients, cakes.

If we're celebrating, I can get all of that plus candles delivered to my front door.

I don't have to make a ton of different trips from the car to the kitchen, back and forth, and save my energy for the fun parts.

Download the Instacart app and use code RottenMango20 to get $20 off your first order of $80 or more.

That's code RottenMango20 to get $20 off your first order of $80 or more.

Offer valid for a limited time, excludes restaurants.

Additional terms apply.

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

It feels like every week there is a new self-help trend that goes viral on social media.

Sometimes it's ice baths.

Okay, that was a hard one.

Mindfulness apps, which was easier.

Digital detoxes, manifestation journals, and people who swear up and down that this is the best solution for becoming your best self.

But for those who are genuinely struggling, all these different online suggestions may just feel overwhelming and honestly just not that helpful enough.

With more than 30,000 therapists all over the world, BetterHelp has already guided over 5 million people towards genuine healing.

You can get matched with a credentialed professional that truly gets your situation and cultural background.

And if your therapist isn't the right fit, switch instantly free of charge.

Your mental health deserves more than trending tips and viral advice.

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise.

Talk it out with BetterHelp.

Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com/slash rotten.

That's better H-E-L-P dot com slash rotten.

KPMG makes the difference by creating value, like developing strategic insights that help drive MA success and embedding AI solutions into your business to sustain competitive advantage or deploying tech-enabled audits to deliver more accurate and transparent outcomes, brighter insights, bolder solutions, better outcomes.

It's how KPMG makes the difference every day.

KPMG, make the difference.

So everyone thinks this whole thing is weird, especially weirder when you, given the fact that Michael Cox, he is interviewed by a reporter later and he's, I mean, he's kind of thrown off guard.

He's like, did you talk to Kelly Dever about her statement?

And he says,

I don't even know Karen Reed.

I've got nothing to do with Karen Reed's case.

I don't know anything about the Karen Reed case.

And everyone's like, that's crazy.

Because what do you mean?

The officer that is deceased involving Karen Reed's case is a Boston police officer.

What do you mean you know nothing of the Karen Reed case?

And the defense is saying, you told us, Kelly Dever, a year ago, when you talked to us, the defense, did you tell us that you were called up to the commissioner's office and he told you two things?

Number one, the department supports you, Officer Deaver, and do the right thing.

Kelly Dever says, so he said my name correctly?

He said, Dever.

Jackson is saying, didn't you tell me that the commissioner said, Officer Deaver, do the right thing?

And Kelly Dever is like, so the commissioner said my name correctly?

He said, Dever.

He said nothing with the intent of guiding me one way or the other.

Just full of attitude, huh?

Yeah, at one point when she's trying to say, I don't remember a question, she says, Just like how you don't remember my name, I don't recall.

That is wild.

Yeah, so is she the one that you're talking about?

Like, she kind of told what happened and then she took it back.

Yeah,

it uh, netizens have dug up that there seems to be some distant familial connection between the Dever family and the McCabes.

There seems to be some sort of marriage between Kelly Dever and Matt McCabe's side of the family.

I don't know.

It just is

definitely not good.

She also accuses one of the male defense attorneys of threatening to charge her with perjury.

And she said that they became very aggressive.

And so Jackson is like, a male voice on the phone threatened to charge you with perjury?

Yes.

You're a police officer, correct?

Yes.

Who charges people with crimes?

In the end, it's going to go through the court system.

So the DA, you know, is, have you ever seen seen a defense attorney charge anybody with a crime?

Personally, no.

Fact of the matter is, nobody ever threatened you with perjury, did they?

They did.

I contacted the FBI regarding it.

Oh, did you?

I did.

Do you have a report from the FBI saying that you reported it, that someone on the Karen Reed defense team threatened to charge you with perjury?

No.

What is going on?

Yeah.

These people are.

Yes, so now it's become a thing where

David Yannetti, the only way he can describe it is, Jonna Keefe is a Boston cop.

I mean, that tells you all you need to know.

The blue wall went up, and Karen Reed is on the outside of the blue wall.

She is an outsider.

It just seems like a lot of it is not even corruption.

I mean, it is, but a lot of it is not even like, I want to protect Brian Albert.

I want to protect the McAlberts.

It just seems more so.

That's just the way it works.

This is how we run things.

But one of the biggest problems in this case is even the accident reconstructionists for both sides are, well, the fact is nobody knows exactly where John's body was found, right?

During the first trial, the prosecution calls up their expert crash reconstructionist, Trooper Paul.

He states that Karen hit John with her car and it all makes sense due to physics.

Trooper Paul states that John was hit by the SUV and flew 30 feet.

Then when the SUV hit him, he projected forward and then to the left and then to the front yard to his final resting place.

If you're confused, it's because it's confusing.

Nobody can understand what he's saying happened when the car hit John O'Keefe.

Basically, Trooper Paul's version of events show John O'Keefe doing almost a ballerina spin.

He gets hit with the taillight, but then his arm stays.

Okay, he gets sideswiped by the taillight.

His arm stays there.

The taillight shatters on impact, but no bruises or broken bones on his arm that took the brunt of the impact of this massive SUV.

And then his arm kind of stays there for the taillights to then kind of sideswipe him again, causing those crazy abrasions.

And then that causes him to propel in like a spin ballerina projected somewhere around the idea of 30 feet until he lands in the grass.

And I know that I'm being very animated with this, and it's because in the whole trial, that's how it is.

He's being animated, and Attorney Jackson, to bring it home, he's like doing a spin in court.

So you're like, so this is what you're telling me happened.

Because I think the only way to see how ridiculous it is is to show the animation of what he's saying happened.

Even Trooper Paul seems very unsure of his own testimony.

And this is where I think a lot of people say, maybe it's not all around corruption.

Maybe it's also a mix of incompetence.

I will say, the defense, the minute that the cross-examination begins, they really don't even need to argue the nitty-gritty of everything he claims because they just argue his credentials.

Jackson questions him, sir, do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of mathematics?

I do not.

Do you hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of physics?

I do not.

Hold any degrees in the scientific discipline of biomechanics?

No.

How about engineering?

No.

What is the highest degree that you do hold, sir?

I have an associate's degree.

In what?

Administration of justice.

What's another word for rate of velocity?

I mean, it's...

It deals with motion, it deals with forward and also deals with speed.

It deals with travel and speed.

If something's moving, it also has a speed to it.

Right.

The word you're looking for is acceleration, correct?

Sure.

The defense also brings up the fact that Trooper Paul testified that when someone is hit by something, whatever they have in their hand, they lose it.

But John O'Keefe held onto his cocktail glass while being projected 30 feet?

Trooper Paul responds, I don't know.

I mean, it just could have been with him the whole way.

I don't know.

I wasn't there, so I don't know how the glass stayed with his body and went with him to the final rest.

So we know that you weren't there, but if you don't know, who knows?

At certain points, Trooper Paul makes no sense and he clearly sounds very nervous.

He will say things like this to the defense attorney.

I'm just responding to what you said and trying to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

To which attorney Jackson responds, no, I don't understand what you're saying.

Another questionable part is the defense points out that John's phone was found underneath his body, to which Trooper Paul is asked, if his cell phone was found under his torso, under his body, what's your theory on how that cell phone ended up flying 30 feet with him?

It just did.

Just did.

And somehow as he landed, he tucked that cell phone underneath his body so that he landed on top of it.

It just did.

That's the evidence at the scene.

I didn't put the evidence there.

Well, you didn't.

Objection sustained.

Cell phone in one hand, cup in the other hand, flew through the air, right?

Objection sustained.

Defense attorney Jackson accuses Trooper Paul of having confirmation bias, to which Trooper Paul says he can't definitively say what confirmation bias even really means.

Trooper Paul states that he came to the final resting spot of John O'Keeffe by way of Gallagher telling him where John O'Keeffe was found.

But remember, Gallagher never saw where John's body was found.

All in all, I think the only takeaway from Trooper Paul's testimony is that he has no clue what he's talking about.

We have no clue what he's talking about.

Nobody has any clue what Trooper Paul is talking about.

At one point, he says, like, there are certain calculations that you can do, you know, based on distance and it's based on miles per hour and the speed of the vehicle and the striking of the vehicle and stuff.

The defense is like, what did you mean by and stuff?

I don't know.

Ultimately, Trooper Paul admits, we cannot calculate anything from this collision.

Side note, he doesn't even know John O'Keefe's weight, which you would think is one of the most important things.

Are you kidding me?

He also doesn't know the mass weight of the vehicle.

Are you kidding me?

It's just so clear that he wrote, How is he an expert?

We don't know.

It's like when you write, I speak Mandarin on your resume.

Well, you do.

I speak Mandarin on your resume, and then you go, and suddenly you have to speak Mandarin, and then I'm just like, okay,

I lied.

How would you calculate how far a body at rest would travel after being struck by an object in motion?

How would you calculate that?

I would use a type of formula for calculations of post-impact speeds of pedestrians.

The defense asks how the taillight was shattered.

So the taillight in this case was shattered when it struck John O'Keefe's arm.

Exactly what part of his arm?

Based on what I saw for his injuries, was the upper part of his arm down.

Trooper Paul states that it would have been out, elbows out, then the full mass, you know, and then it got hit.

He really doesn't know what he's talking about.

If he flew like 30 miles, John O'Keefe.

30 feet.

I'm so sorry.

30 feet.

Yes.

It's very easy to calculate the force needed to reach that kind of distance.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But even just the arm?

Yeah, and that doesn't make sense.

None of it makes sense.

To shatter that type of plastic,

you know, what type of force is going to happen?

Like, it just doesn't happen.

Yeah.

And then also it's a lot of the plastic taillight pieces were found around where john o'keefee's body was found so it shattered like an explosion right exactly none of it makes sense so then there was brief and there's only one thing that doesn't lie which is physics yeah like that's one thing cannot lie so just follow that just proves everyone is lying yeah But he's like, no, this is exactly what happened.

And when he's asked, how are there no injuries to John O'Keeffe's arm other than those abrasions and lacerations?

He says, I don't know.

Literally, I don't know.

Any other questions about that?

Auntie Bev just sustains all of them.

Jackson asks, and at the same time, he does a piraway and flies 30 feet to his final resting point of rest.

I don't know if he did like a piraway.

He started rotating counterclockwise.

I don't know how far he kind of counterclockwise, but started rotating according to that push.

He would rotate counterclockwise, whether that was counterclockwise all the way to his back toward the ground.

It almost seems like the most likely possibility.

So

at one point, the defense straight up asks Trooper Paul: The truth is, Trooper Paul, you have no idea what all these physics calculations mean, do you?

Objection sustained.

Nettizing comments read: I was feeling sympathy for how insufficient Trooper Paul's intelligence is, but then I see him on cross trying to explain away a murder charge with his woefully lacking investigation and opinions, not doing calculations because it was a reverse is a lie.

The laws of physics exist, gravity exists despite his wish that it didn't.

I don't know, just Just like based on this person alone, just this little conversation alone, it's enough to prove that Karen Reed didn't hit John O'Keefe.

That's it.

Period.

The end.

I don't even know how the mistrial happened from the first trial.

It doesn't even make any sense.

I think the biggest thing for me is the feds got involved.

The federal investigation that has no connection with Karen Reid, that has no connection with the McAlberts, and their experts said these injuries from John O'Keefe were not from a collision.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And they had no skin in the game.

They gave this to the Commonwealth and the defense, and they said, here you go.

And I feel like that was where I was like, okay, then what can I say?

Yeah, I don't know physics like that, but they're telling me.

So it wasn't from a collision, then let's look elsewhere.

Yes.

But they're like, no, it was from a collision.

In fact, Trooper Paul testified in trial one, and clearly it did not go well.

So for trial two, the Commonwealth brings in expert witnesses, very expensive expert witnesses from from a company called Aperture.

The first one is Shannon Burgess.

You can already tell things are going to go awry by the fact that his direct by Hank Brennan is one and a half hours long and the cross by Robert Alessi is four and a half hours long, which by the way, Robert Alessi is a pharmacist as well.

He's got a lot of, it seems like he knows a lot of STEM-related stuff.

I don't know how else to describe it.

But it seems like he's very well versed in anything STEM related.

Shannon Burgess says that he found a new computer chip in Karen Reed's SUV that hasn't been previously analyzed and he used that data to calculate the time difference between Karen Reed's SUV and John O'Keeffe's cell phone and he found the variance and then he's just saying you know the time adds up to when Karen Reed made a three-point turn and when John O'Keefe's phone was used for the last time and that is why he believes that she was the one that killed him on impact.

When the cross-examination starts, when it starts with these types of questions, you just know it's not the type of cross that you want to be on the receiving end of.

Alessi has this look of, good afternoon, Mr.

Burgess.

And it's just, people know Alessi, and people say, this man is about to do something that Burgess is not going to like.

He brings up his CV.

CV cover?

Yeah.

And it says that he is currently pursuing a bachelor's degree.

But interestingly enough, on the Aperture Official website, his bio states that he has a BS in mathematics and business administration, not currently pending or pursuing, just has it.

You do not have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Business Administration, do you?

No, I do not.

He also puts it in his LinkedIn, but also he hasn't gotten his degree for that, nor is he actively pursuing it.

So is he just like lying on the Aperture website and his LinkedIn?

The defense brings up another resume, and this time again, it says Bachelor of General Science in Mathematics and Business Administration, University of Alabama 2022.

All Burgess can say about that is, that is what it states, but this resume, there are a number of errors in that.

Correct.

So let's go on.

This is the third example.

Am I correct, sir?

It has errors or outdated information.

Well, when you say outdated, how is it that you can call a date outdated next to something you don't possess?

Either you have a Bachelor of Science degree or you don't.

I have represented that I do not have a bachelor's degree.

But to make matters worse, the degree that he claimed to have doesn't even exist at the University of Alabama.

He's asked, you would agree that there is not even a degree called Bachelor of General Science in Mathematics and Business Administration offered at the University of Alabama, correct?

Correct.

If I did the math correctly, sir, you have been pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree for 17 years, correct?

That is correct.

And you have not obtained it as you have sit here today.

That is correct.

Is he embarrassed?

What is happening right now?

Yeah, so he's lying on his resume.

He has no degree in this, but what if Shannon Burgess is a genius that excels in math?

And this is an episode of Suits.

He didn't graduate from school, but he is a prodigy-level ability to comprehend car accidents and physics.

That could be the case.

The defense reels that Shannon Burgess doesn't know the difference between a gigabit and a gigabyte.

To simplify it, one gigabyte is eight gigabits, which is kind of confusing, but like that's like confusing five minutes and 40 minutes.

It's a huge discrepancy, a huge miscalculation, misunderstanding, error, whatever Shannon Burgess wants to call it.

Do I know the difference between the two?

No, but I also don't work for Aperture where these things can change the course of a defendant's life based on their calculations.

Burgess didn't even realize he misunderstood a gigabyte and a gigabit until the defense ARCA witnesses were like, hey, prosecutors, your experts are dumb.

They confused it, so.

Unbelievable.

You simply misunderstood the difference between gigabits and gigabytes, correct?

Misinterpreted, I would not say misunderstood.

He also misinterprets dates, just straight up gets dates wrong on his scientific findings.

The defense also accuses him of just switching up his data and findings whenever other experts that are also testifying for the prosecution find different findings just to make it all cohesive, which is not at all what you're supposed to do.

And side note, the redirect for the prosecution does not save this testimony because

this cross-examination is four and a half hours long and it's brutal.

Very brutal.

It just makes it goofier.

All Hank Brennan can do is ask Burgess: a bachelor's degree is not a prerequisite of success in a particular field.

No, it's not.

You ever heard of Bill Gates?

Yes.

Steve Jobs.

Oh my gosh.

Open Run Free.

Objection?

Sustained.

Then you have the other aperture expert who I guess I decided last night at like three in the morning, he doesn't deserve a spot on this wall.

Okay, but he's just another, he's the blue man.

The blue man?

The blue man, but he's the blue man uh good morning dr welcher robert alessi is also the one doing this i will say robert alessi i don't think anyone expected him to do these types of crosses he i feel like he knows more about physics than the aperture witnesses He looks like he wouldn't know.

Yeah.

He, he's, people call him like the nerdy, hot guy type.

He looks like a scientist more than a lawyer.

Yeah, which makes him an incredible lawyer.

And he, good morning, Dr.

Welcher.

And Dr.

Welcher is a lot.

He says, good morning.

We haven't been formally introduced.

Your whole name?

Robert Alessi, which I just felt like Welcher is trying to assert his dominance, which doesn't bode well for him later on.

He introduces himself as an action reconstruction and biomechanics expert.

He's got a little feistiness in him.

Alessi asks him, is one of the first questions you ask, how did this happen?

No, that's usually the last question.

Oh, so for you, so hold on a second.

Generally, what we do, what you want to do, is gather data.

You want to know

what the injuries are, the evidence there is, like, for example, the vehicle and on the vehicle.

And then, the very last thing you want to know or define, given all that information, is how did that happen?

So, that's the end.

It's very preachy.

It's like, kind of like, he's like, so hold on a second, let me tell you how it's done.

Unfortunately, Welcher has no explanation for how the car hit John on the hand, but, and broke nothing in his hand or his arm.

Is 300 to 400 pounds of force sound right from the literature that it would take to break a bone in the hand for a distributed load such as a taillight no but moving on because welcher is mainly known for his blue paint alassie asks him dr welcher i would like to talk now about your blue paint exercise i'll just call it a blue paint exercise is that descriptive enough for you of to know what we're talking about no it's not an exercise it's a test Do you want me to call it a blue paint test?

Sure, okay.

Let's call it a blue paint test.

So your blue paint test involved painting the right rear taillight blue, correct?

So he bought Alexis.

Who bought Alexis?

Welcher bought Alexis for Aperture.

I mean, the Commonwealth paying for it.

Bought Alexis, painted the rear taillight blue, and then he's standing there and has it back up into him at two miles per hour.

He runs three tests where the blue paint backs up to him in two miles per hour to see where the blue paint lands on his hand because he is also the same height as John O'Keeffe or around the similar same height.

But that's confusing for the defense because it's like you don't even know where John O'Keefe was standing.

You don't know if he was standing on the lawn, which would be a few inches discrepancy from if he was standing on the street.

If you don't know where he's standing and these few inches make vastly different results for a test like this, what kind of tests are you running?

Also, you're running the test at two miles per hour.

The Commonwealth is claiming that she hit him at over 20 miles per hour.

How can you even run a test like that?

Yeah, yeah.

So they're asking, you didn't do a blue paint test with the vehicle going 20 miles per hour, correct?

That is correct.

I was not going to hit myself with with the lexus at 20 miles per hour you could have done other tests where the vehicle was going 20 miles per hour if you used a crash test dummy correct welcher gives a lengthy explanation of why he didn't do that but it just sounds like why you didn't do your homework it doesn't really make that much sense alessi is so over welcher he just tells wetcher you don't have the point of impact you don't know where in the road there was impact you you don't have anything the purpose of your blue paint test was quote i mean the focal point is what

Welcher says the focal point of the purpose of that test was to show the contact with the location of how someone of Mr.

O'Keefe's height, which happens to be my height, where it contacts the broken taillight.

That's why I did the testing.

That's why we're calling it a paint transfer testing.

Okay, so his test is trying to show that John O'Keefe's arm broke the taillight.

But that doesn't even,

that's not the test.

The test is it just touched the taillight.

Because you can't prove it broke the taillight if you don't test at the speed.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Yeah, put a dummy there.

Yeah, but he's something.

Yeah.

At one point, he gets very aggressive and he just argues, it's possible the car could have shot off into space as an engineer, but not probable.

Alessia is like, oh, so you think it's possible that it could have been shot off into space?

As an engineer, it's a possibility, absolutely.

Highly, highly unlikely.

But again, you're asking as an engineer about probabilities and possibilities.

Okay, so let's get back to reality, Dr.

Welcher.

Netizens are commenting, apparently this guy thinks that John's arm blew up the taillights pieces into 47 pieces without breaking a single bone.

He couldn't answer a yes or no question if asked if it's sunny outside right now.

This clown did his own two mile per hour crash, did ridiculous paint tests, and admits that engineering has thousands of possibilities, including launching the Lexus into space.

Another one says, basically, they're doing costume changes, lying on the stand, and finger painting to get paid by taxpayers, which they're getting paid a lot.

The Commonwealth paid nearly $400,000 to Aperture for the testing.

Whoa.

And it was dumb.

Yes.

The test was useless.

Useless.

Which brings us to the defense witnesses.

Dr.

Daniel Wolf and Dr.

Andrew Rent.

And they are called Crash Daddy.

Mainly, Dr.

Wolf is called Crash Daddy.

He's honorable Crash Daddy, Crash Daddy number two.

And there was a whole ordeal that Hank Brennan was fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they don't come in in for the second trial.

It was a whole thing.

They bring in ARCA, the two crash daddies.

Now, ARCA was originally hired by the FBI, and they are a formal accident reconstruction company that are hired by law firms that work primarily with car insurance companies, insurance carriers, and they also have multiple contracts with the Department of Defense, the DOD, for accident reconstructions.

Their CVs filled to the brim.

Like, if anybody knows anything about car accidents, they know, and we know they know because the prosecutors could not question their CVs.

Yeah, and it sounded like they are the people to hire for something like this.

Ask the expert.

Here's the expert.

Yes.

But the prosecutor never reached out to like a formal official.

Aperture is supposed to be.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think a netizen speculation is that they had to reach out to Aperture or a company that maybe some people subjectively, in their opinion, think is not as reputable as ARCA because ARCA would probably not lie.

And ARCA is perhaps too smart.

And ARCA would tell you straight up, which is what they do on the stand.

They both state John's injuries are inconsistent with a crash.

Dr.

Wolf states it's his job to quote, I think a simple definition in my mind, and this is going to be a breath of fresh air compared to the aperture witnesses, he's very likable on the stand.

Both of them are.

I think a simple definition in my mind of my job would be the application of physics, engineering, science, and mathematics to collision events.

I always like to think is if you open up a puzzle box and you dump the pieces out and you've got a bunch of pieces and you're trying to piece together the evidence to see how everything fits together in a clear picture.

Unlike any of the prosecution witnesses, he says, back in 2012, I received a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from James Madison University along with a minor in mathematics.

Some of my courses while at JMU included courses in physics, statics, dynamics, kinematics, material science, along with other engineering sciences.

Subsequent to my undergraduate degree, I then went on to the University of Delaware to pursue my PhD in electrical and computer engineering with a concentration in electromagnetics and photonics.

So, in addition to my undergraduate degree and my PhD, I've continued to take courses through Northwestern University and Crash Reconstruction.

Some of those courses have included human factors lighting.

I've taken courses on electronic vehicle data, photo geometry, I don't even know these names, three-dimensional laser scanning.

So I've continued to take courses subsequent to graduating with my PhD.

Right off the bat, they sound a lot more credible.

They also, yes.

Are you saying both of these were also in trial one?

Yes.

And they try to get them banned from trial two.

That is crazy.

Even with that, there's still questions.

Yeah.

And he, they ran a lot of tests.

So instead of just like rubbing blue paint on a taillight, they ran multiple experiments to see what would happen when a taillight collides at various speeds with a dummy arm, to which the crash daddy state, based on the test results, the damage is inconsistent with striking an arm.

They also tried to do a test where, because he had a cocktail glass in his hand that shattered, they got a cocktail glass projectile.

Basically, like a gun that shoots a cocktail glass at a taillight, yes, to see if the taillight shatters and where the cocktail glass pieces land, where the taillight pieces land.

That also does not show that John was hit by this car.

Okay, okay, I see.

They're trying to prove that maybe the cocktail of glass shattered that taillight.

But again, that was inconsistent with the scene.

So they're not even just trying to prove one thing.

They're just trying to go down the line and they're like, literally, nothing.

Like nothing.

At one point, the only thing that the prosecution can do with the ARCA experts, because honestly, they're experting.

The only thing that they can do is try to say that they're too friendly with the defense team.

They're too friendly with the the defense team because the defense team is like, hey, these weren't really even our hired experts in trial one.

They did eventually get hired and they were only paid like $23,000, which is a lot of money, but they were probably way under what they were paid by the FBI.

So when they testified for trial one, they didn't have to testify.

The FBI already paid them.

They did their job.

But they came in and they testified.

For trial two, I think their hotel fees, their traveling, their time was compensated for $23,000.

And he's making a whole big ordeal about it when he just paid Aperture $400,000.

But he's just trying to say, you guys are too close.

Are you quite like, that's like the last thing he should be questioning right now.

When you look at this whole map that everyone knows each other.

And he's just also saying things like, Sue, you call him Alan?

Alan Jackson?

Sounds like you guys are friendly.

And Trash Daddy is like, what are you talking about?

It's literally,

yeah, I've become familiar with him over the years.

So I call him Alan.

And then I think

he becomes a meme at this point because he says, so what would you call me?

And everyone's like, are you jealous of Crash Daddy?

Like, what do you want him to call you?

It seemed like people have been putting romantic music and like, what would you call me then?

And he just says, probably Mr.

Brennan.

And everyone's just like, okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then at at one point, Dr.

Rent, honorable crash daddy number two, he throws shade at aperture and he says, well, the blue paint test is the only test that he performed.

And he referenced that test for his opinion that the position and lacerations are consistent with the taillight cover.

So if that test was not intended to signify or demonstrate the orientation of the arm, that's the only test you did.

So it...

If it doesn't represent that, it's really meaningless in his analysis and conclusions.

He's saying, what was the test for?

I don't know what.

you did a test and it failed, so you have no solution.

No answer.

So what did you do that for?

So why are you showing us this test?

Exactly.

Because this test means nothing.

Yes.

It's a stupid test.

Which is how a lot of netizens feel.

And they feel that Crush Daddy's dimples alone would have them believe them.

So then the next problem is, if it's not caused by the arm, if we believe Arca, then what could it be caused by?

Now we bring up Chloe once more.

The prosecution brings a Terry Kuhn.

She works for UC Davis at the Veterinary Genetics Lab in the forensic unit.

She's the DNA technical lead and she's been doing this for 25 years.

She had tested swabs sent in by the MSP and tested it for dog canine DNA, which it showed negative.

But it did show positive for pig DNA, which she says could happen when you have pork or any sort of pig cold cuts or anything of that sort.

So it doesn't necessarily say that he was at a pig pig farm or anything of that.

But people thought it was very interesting that there's no dog DNA.

But when the defense really gets into the nitty-gritty of it all, they're asking her, do you know where the swabs came from?

It was pulled from John's t-shirt that was laying on the hospital floor.

So there's a lot of questions of that.

And the defense is just saying, just because there was no dog DNA does not mean anything.

In fact, dog DNA should have been taken from the arm.

Like any swab should have been taken from John O'Keefe's arm.

And even then, if those are claw marks, it would have have been very difficult to find dog DNA because usually you need saliva to indicate these animal DNA

factors.

The defense bring in their own witness, an older doctor by the name of Dr.

Marie Russell.

And I don't know why, but Auntie Bev has beef with her for no reason because during a void, which is So vaudir is not just jury selection.

It could be like vetting of witnesses when the jury is not around.

There is a vaudir of Dr.

Marie Russell.

And Auntie Bev is like, because it's a vaudeir, I can ask questions.

And everyone is like, I have never seen a judge ask questions.

I mean, judges will sometimes ask questions for the, when it's jury selection to make sure that everything is impartial, the jurors are all good, but this is weird.

Dr.

Russell is very sharp.

She is a professional dog bite expert.

Her resume is as good as the ARCA experts.

Residency at USC Level 1 Trauma Center, then forensic pathology residency at the LA County Coroner's Office.

She has been studying dog bites for a very long time.

She has probably seen maybe a thousand dog bites.

And she says, looking at John's autopsy photos, I believe that those injuries were sustained by an animal, possibly a large dog, because of the pattern of the injuries.

Fascinating.

Yes.

And a lot of people online say, hey, guys, I'm not an expert, but I've been bitten by a dog.

I've been clawed at by a dog.

And look.

Also, people say that

There are rumors that Chloe was supposed to be a canine dog in training, but failed out of the academy.

And canine dogs dogs are trained to bite the arm, you know, when they have those marshmallow arms.

So it's very interesting that it's only one arm and she's allegedly bit on very strongly.

The only rebuttal that the Commonwealth has to Dr.

Russell's testimony is that bite analysis science is pseudoscience.

I agree, but hold on.

They're conflating two different things.

Bite analysis science is pseudoscience when you look at bite indentations on like a person's arm.

Let's say someone bit my arm and they take a picture of this and they bring up scans of people's teeth and they say, does person one fit?

Does person two fit?

Does person three fit?

It's person three.

Convict them.

That is pseudoscience.

It's very hard to identify the individual.

But that's not what Dr.

Marie Russell's doing.

She's saying, I mean, you can kind of tell when it's a dog bite.

I'm not saying which dog it is.

I'm not saying which breed of dog it is.

I'm just telling you, these are very consistent with what I have seen are dog bites because I study dog bites.

Wow.

Yeah.

But they're saying, no, bite science is pseudoscience.

And she's like, I'm not saying I'm going to tell you which dog, which breed of dog, but it's, this is very weird.

Yeah.

People think it's so crazy that this is happening.

So then just bring in Chloe, right, to examine her.

Well,

Defense Attorney Jackson says, I want access to that dog.

I might want to measure its claws.

I might want to measure its teeth.

I might want to have a forensic veterinarian look at the dog, examine the dog.

And then we find out that the Alberts got rid of the dog.

Their family pet.

They get rid of Chloe and rehome her in Vermont.

Insane.

The defense is saying that the Commonwealth never gave them any sort of information.

They gave them some random vet

form of a dog that's not even named Chloe on the vet forms of like random people from Vermont.

And they're like, who are these people?

We don't even know if that's Chloe.

Who's to say that's Chloe?

That could be a different German Shepherd.

Who's to say the Brian Alberts don't find a different German Shepherd?

And it's like, that's Chloe.

See, the teeth don't match.

See, everything doesn't match.

Oh my gosh.

So they ask the McAlberts why they got rid of Chloe.

And they say that recently, right, before they rehomed Chloe, it's not because of John O'Keefe.

It's because Chloe bit another dog.

And then the two owners of the dog, two women that were walking that dog, try to stop Chloe.

And Chloe attacked the two women.

They ended up in the hospital.

One of those two women later reached out to to Vanity Fair and said, I was scared because after I got out of the hospital, I was reached out to by Kevin Albert,

a Canton police officer who was asking me, how can we make this go away?

Whoa.

Allegedly.

But they rehomed the dog.

It's, I think this is one of those cases where I'm getting very confused because a lot of the information seems like it's not subjective.

A lot of the digital forensic information of how long long to die in the cold should not be subjective.

The crash experts should not be subjective, but somehow everything has become subjective.

Everything has become, will you believe this party or this party?

But I thought digital forensics,

physics were typically objective things in the court of law.

So this case is interesting in that sense.

Where it's just weird.

But I think it's weird enough to cause reasonable doubt, which is the burden of the prosecution.

Because in the end, for the second trial, I mean, you guys already know, the jurors go off to deliberate and they come back and they find Karen Reed

not guilty.

And you hear people cheering outside the courthouse, inside the courtroom, and she's just like bursting into tears.

Even her defense attorneys are so emotional in that moment.

And it's just a very...

She is found guilty of operating under the influence, but she does not get jail time.

Instead, she receives a year of probation.

And Karen says, I could not be standing here today without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team financially.

And more importantly, emotionally, no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than I have.

About the verdict, she says, at first there's grief, then it's anger.

It's anger that outside sources, outside people can influence what happens in a courtroom and can impact the results of a pretty cut and dry case.

Carrie Roberts has also released her own statement stating that she's confused why everyone hates her.

And her new best friend, Jen McCabe, she says, I don't know why they're making Jen McCabe a villain.

All she did was answer the same phone call I did.

Karen called her.

She didn't call Karen.

It's so stupid and bizarre.

We put our asses on the line for three and a half years, two trials to help the state of Massachusetts.

And you're not going to help us when we're being harassed?

It's not worth it to put my family through that ever again and not be protected at all.

It's absolutely sick.

The jury pool was completely tainted, is all I can say.

Yeah.

Brian Albert and his family have released a statement of their own.

Our hearts are with John and his entire O'Keeffe family.

They have suffered through so much and deserve better from the justice system.

While we may have more to say in the future today, we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Reed, her defense team, and some in the media.

The result is a devastating miscarriage of justice.

ATF Brian Higgins has remained quiet, except there are rumors and sources floating around the internet that he was seen drunk at a bar where he was telling a buddy of his, all I did was pull the dog off.

We don't know if this is true.

This could be completely a made-up lie.

Brennan has made a statement after this case.

He says, DA Michael Morrissey appointed me, giving me full discretion to independently assess this case and follow the evidence no matter where it led.

After an independent and thorough review of all the evidence, I concluded that the evidence led to one person and one person only.

Neither the closed federal investigation nor my independent review led me to identify any other possible suspect or person responsible for the death of John O'Keefe.

The campaign of intimidation and abuse that has been waged, funded, and promoted in public and on social media is the antithesis of justice.

If this type of conduct becomes commonplace, it will threaten the integrity of our judicial system affecting both victims and criminally accused.

Jackson states: the Commonwealth would rather simply condemn the jury in its fair and lawful verdict.

As for D.A.

Morrissey, who has been under a lot of fire for retrying this case, Jackson even said it was an ego issue with him.

He was not going to accept the idea that his office got it wrong.

He would rather put Karen through another horrifying crucible of a second trial with some hired gun and say, I'm going to leave it to the jurors to figure it out.

It took two days, but he released a statement that consists of four words.

The jury has spoken.

Wow.

David Yannetti states, the scary thing for me is that, and there has been a holdout, had there been a mistral, I think Michael Morrissey would have tried it again.

The O'Keefe family have since filed a wrongful death suit against Karen Reed, C.F.

McCarthy's, the first bar that John and Karen went to, and then Waterfall Bar, saying that they overserved.

And they are seeking about $50,000 in damages for, quote, conscious pain and suffering and profound emotional distress.

Karen states the timing is very weird.

She says that they could have sued me right when John O'Keefe passed, but they sued me after they found out that she wasn't going to prison.

As for the kids, she really cares for those kids, and she says they've been exploited and brought into a trial they have no business being in.

The hope for me is that one day one of them will grow up and dig into this case and be ambitious enough to say, I need to see everything.

Jackson states about Karen and her criminal trials: make no mistake, it's not that the Commonwealth didn't prove that she's guilty.

We proved that she's innocent.

and the unfortunate thing is it's caused a flood of

people who probably are guilty

that have proctor and lowley have touched their case in some way that are trying very hard

to get their cases thrown out really and it's just become a thing where a lot of people say i mean looking at the evidence in their cases it doesn't seem like a karen reed situation where they've been framed or potentially there's not enough evidence.

But there could be cases that they wrongfully.

Oh, yes, of course.

Yes, of course.

But the two in question that are coming up often, it doesn't seem like that's the case.

And I think that's where a lot of netizens are even more infuriated because it's not even just Karen Reid, but you're talking about so much impact that's going to be left because what?

You can't do your job.

Also, the fact that the feds case is closed has been up for debate.

Some people think that's the feds.

They haven't responded personally.

It's just Hank Brennan and the prosecution saying that the feds case is closed, but we don't really know.

And one person that has worked with the feds before, the DOJ, they say, you know, it could be that the feds are sitting back and not saying anything because the case is closed and they're silently walking away, or they could be working on this case as we speak.

You never really know.

Yeah.

Karen Reed says, even if it's closed, that hardly means anyone involved in murdering John or framing me was cleared of wrongdoing.

But everyone should know which side of the case is celebrating the federal investigation supposedly being closed and which side isn't.

I will tell you which side of this case is culpable and therefore worried about a possible federal indictment.

That is true.

Yeah.

One juror that was on the second trial has come out to say that they hope the FBI is investigating because they want justice for John O'Keefe and they don't think Karen did it.

They say that means we have at least one killer in town, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As a matter of fact, I think we might have a whole pack.

Yes.

And that is where I leave you with Karen Reed's final part four.

What are your thoughts on this case?

I know there's a lot more that we could have dug into, but it just would have taken me 20 episodes.

What are your thoughts?

Leave it in the comments, and I will see you in the next one.

Be safe.

What does possibility mean to you?

Um, that's a hard question.

Something that you can strive for.

That I'm able to do anything I set my mind to.

You're confident in yourself and you believe in yourself.

Stuff that you could achieve.

I feel at Saida.

Anything is possible when you're more confident.

Shoes are a huge part of that.

They are the most important part of my style.

You You can like express yourself in the right shoes.

Anything is possible.

DSW, countless shoes at bragworthy prices.

Imagine the possibilities.

Hi, it's Daphne Su.

Want to listen to new episodes of Rotten Mingo ad-free?

Rotten Mingo is now part of SiriusXM's Podcast Plus.

With SiriusXM's Podcast Plus subscription, you'll get this plus benefits on dozens of select podcasts within the SiriusXM network.

What are you waiting for?

Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts or visit seriousxm.com slash podcast plus to start your free trial today.