272: Karen Read Trial Recap Week 3: Solo Cups, Butt Dials & Witnesses Scramble to Cut Ties with the Alberts/Proctor

This Labor Day, gear up, save big, and ride harder with cycle gear.

From August 22nd to September 1st, score up to 60% off motorcycle gear from your favorite brands.

RPM members get 50% off tire mount and balance with any new tire purchase.

Need to hit the road now?

Fast Lane Financing lets you ride now and pay later with 0% interest for three months.

And here's the big one: August 29th through September 1st only.

Buy any helmet $319 or more and get a free Cardo Spirit Bluetooth.

Supplies are limited.

Don't wait.

Cycle gear.

Get there.

Start here.

This is Larry Flick, owner of the Floor Store.

Labor Day is the last sale of the summer, but this one is our biggest sale of the year.

Now through September 2nd, get up to 50% off store-wide on carpet, hardwood, laminate, waterproof flooring, and much more.

Plus two years interest-free financing, and we pay your sales tax.

The Floor Stores Labor Day sale.

Don't let the sun set on this one.

Go to floorstores.com to find the nearest of our 10 showrooms from Santa Rosa to San Jose.

The Floor Store, your area flooring authority.

Looking to transform your business through Better HR and payroll?

Meet Paycor, a paychecks company, the powerhouse solution that empowers leaders to drive results.

From recruiting and development to payroll and analytics, Paycor connects you with the people, data, and expertise you need to succeed.

Their innovative platform helps you make smarter decisions about your most valuable asset, your people.

Ready to become a better leader?

Visit paycorp.com/slash leaders to learn more.

That's paycorp.com/slash leaders.

Karen Reed, accused of the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has consistently asserted her innocence, alleging a concerted effort by law enforcement to frame her.

Charged with hitting her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV early Saturday morning and leaving him in a snowbank.

The closely watched murder trial has ended in a mistrial.

The prosecution is indicating that it will retry this case, and the question becomes one of how will they do it?

Hey, True Crime Besties, welcome back to an all-new episode of Serial Aslee.

Hello, hello, hello.

Welcome back to an all-new episode of Serialously with me, Annie Elise.

And today we've got the Karen Reed Week 3 recap.

You know these come out every Friday where I'm breaking down everything that you missed this week, all the high-level information, the key takeaways, because I know you don't have seven hours a day to dedicate to watching the trial.

If you do, hopefully you're in the live stream with me every day because I'm live streaming it over on my YouTube each day and we talk during the breaks and all that.

But for those those of you who don't have the time to do that, that's why we put together these weekly recaps so that you can get a good understanding of what's gone down this week and, you know, the need to know.

So we are going to be talking about Jen McCabe, where things left off with some of her testimony, some expert testimony regarding the phone, the searches, things of that nature.

We also this week heard more about the taillight, the amount of drinks that were consumed.

A lot of ring footage was reviewed.

So there's quite a bit to go over.

Before we get into all of the details though, I do want to just say on here for those of you who listen to the podcast only and have not been watching the live stream of the trial with me, and I apologize if you've been watching the live stream with me, it's probably going to sound redundant right now, but I'm going to share my opinion on this case and where I've stood on this case since day one, years ago when I first heard about it, because

I've seen some comments too.

They're like, oh, you're biased.

You are in Karen Reed's camp.

You think that she's being framed and that it's this mass conspiracy when I really don't think that.

And I have been very vocal about that.

Maybe not enough here, but certainly over on my YouTube.

I've been very vocal about that from day one.

And here's where I stand with this case.

I don't know how John died.

I don't know who killed John or what really happened.

I don't know if it was Karen.

I don't know if it was somebody inside that house at 34 Fairview.

What I personally know and what I believe is that there is too much reasonable doubt to convict Karen.

And that's why maybe sometimes my coverage or my opinions that I share do sound a little biased because I'm calling out the doubt.

I'm calling out the red flags that we're seeing, the testimonies that aren't matching up, the inconsistencies.

Because remember, too, innocent until proven guilty, and it is on the state.

They have to show the burden of proof that Karen is guilty of this.

And that's why I talk about a lot of the inconsistencies because I don't think that they definitively are doing that.

Not to mention all of the shadiness with former Trooper Proctor, the weird Google searches, the butt dials, the destruction of phones, the poorly collected evidence.

So when I talk about those things, it's not to necessarily paint this grander picture of this massive conspiracy, but it's to illustrate how much reasonable doubt is there.

The most devastating part about all of this, no matter what side of the argument you're on, the fact of the matter is I don't believe in my heart that John will ever get justice.

And that's really tough for, if it's tough for me to swallow that, I mean, it's got to be tough for his family and friends and everybody else.

But think about it.

If Karen's acquitted, which in my mind, she should be acquitted because there is so much doubt.

I don't think that they can convict her fully knowing that she, you know, with full confidence that she did this.

But I also don't think that there's enough evidence for them to charge anybody else, even if they did think it was somebody who was inside 34 Fairview that night.

So where does that leave us, right?

It leaves us in a place where nobody's held accountable, nobody's convicted, and John doesn't get justice.

And I don't know that we will ever actually have the real answer of what happened to John that night, definitively.

I know that we may be 80% there or 90% there, but I don't know that we ever will know for sure what happened to him that night.

And that is devastating, right?

I also know that there are a lot of people out there that believe she is guilty, that believe she is being framed and that this is some larger conspiracy.

Even today, I did, I've been doing polls every single day as we've been covering the trial.

And right now, only 6% on that poll think she's guilty, but that has increased.

Earlier this week, it was at 2%.

The balance is between being framed and set up and then having too much doubt to know, which that's the third bucket that I sit in myself.

But there's a lot of mixed opinions out there and i'll just share this too when i first heard about this case my mind went to okay common sense tells me that she was blackout waisted that she hit him that even though the injuries aren't exactly consistent with a six-foot man being hit with a car maybe he was bent over outside of the car and when she reversed she hit him in the head and that's what incapacitated him and that's why the injuries don't look like a standing man who was hit by a car that would explain why his cocktail glass was still there outside with him because it was right when he got out of the vehicle.

Maybe her music was too loud and that's why she didn't hear anything and she drove off, especially if in the morning when she called Jen McCabe, she said she didn't even remember leaving Waterfall.

Like my mind was like, okay, common sense.

Occam's razor tells you she probably hit him.

But then you start layering in all of the things of the Google searches, the red solo cups, the butt dials, the destroying the phones, the this, the that, all of these things that are being picked apart.

Some of like the lies that have been exposed regarding the grand jury testimony.

And there's enough question and enough doubt to creep in to where maybe common sense isn't so common.

Maybe there's something more.

Now, again, sorry to reiterate, but for me, I don't know if that is enough to where I'm able to jump full bore into, well, you know, 15 people must have all conspired together then to cover this murder up and to protect their own.

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy.

I don't think I can quite jump to that personally.

I know what happens.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm sure that there are plenty of situations like that that have happened out there.

And maybe even that is what is happening right now.

But I am not fully there.

I don't necessarily believe that that's the situation.

Again, I just believe that there's too much doubt to know what really happened.

And that's tough because then at the end of the day, John is not getting justice and we don't have any answers.

Then again, I could be wrong.

And at the end of this trial, maybe Karen will be found guilty.

Maybe she will be convicted of second-degree murder.

Maybe only manslaughter.

Maybe all three.

I don't know.

So, anyways, I just wanted to address that really quick because I know a lot of the people who listen to this podcast are not watching the trial every day with us.

So you probably haven't heard my opinion on it.

And I've seen a lot of questions asking, well, Annie, tell us what you think.

What do you think about this case?

What side do you stand on?

And I just wanted to, you know, make it clear where I'm at.

But now I'm going to shut up and I'm going to pass the mic over to Elena.

You guys know her.

Elena Johnson, she is our correspondent on Boots on the Ground in Boston.

She's going to break down everything that went down this week.

So hi, Elena, and thank you for joining us.

Hey, Annie.

Now we're officially three weeks into the Karen-Reed Rue trial.

And given that it was originally scheduled for six to eight weeks, it's safe to say we're approaching the halfway point.

First, some general updates to the case.

On Monday, we learned that Judge Kanoni has granted the motion to prohibit references to the Sandra Birchmore case, unless that door is opened during other testimony.

Now, if you're not familiar, Sandra was a pregnant woman who was found dead in Canton in 2021.

It was originally ruled as self-inflicted, but federal prosecutors have said that she was actually killed by a Stouton police detective.

Now, the defense wanted to bring up the case here, as it involves some of the same officers, but the prosecution said, quote, testimony about this unrelated death investigation would result in a trial within a trial, with much of the information being inadmissible, confidential, or offered without proper foundation.

And it seems like the judge agreed, but it's still possible that the case could come up if a witness mentions it in other types of testimony.

So picking up on Friday, May 2nd, we continue with the contentious cross-examination of Jen McCabe.

We went through lots of lines of questioning, and I want to hit on four of the big ones.

First, Jackson started by clarifying with Jen when she last saw Karen's SUV in front of 34 Fairview.

Now, Jen said she isn't exactly sure, but Jackson breaks out her testimony from 2023, where she says she last saw it at around 12.45 a.m.

Now this might not seem like a huge deal yet, but we should keep that timestamp in mind because in the first trial, evidence was shown to suggest that Karen connected to John's Wi-Fi by around 1236 or 1237 a.m.

And I think it's interesting that given this Wi-Fi timestamp data, Jen has changed her stance from, it was definitely 1245 a.m.

when I last saw the SUV to I'm not really sure.

Alan then had Jen read texts between herself, her husband Matt McCabe, her sister Nicole Albert, and her brother-in-law Brian Albert.

Here are a couple of the most interesting.

On February 1st, we have a text from Matt McCabe to the group where he's referring to the Channel 4 news crew that apparently showed up at Chris Albert's restaurant.

Matt says, quote, ask Chris to ask some questions.

Tell them the guy never went into the house.

Now two things stick out to me.

First, keep in mind that this is three days after John's death, and Matt is referring to John as, quote, the guy.

Supposedly, according to Jen, John was very close to her and her family, but according to Matt, he's just the guy.

Couldn't even use his name.

Second, we have the full line.

Tell them the guy never went in the house.

Now, is this just Matt innocently reminding everyone of the important facts of the case?

Or is this Matt instructing everyone to stick to their story, to stick to their lie?

And if it is innocent, if this is what really happened, why did Matt even feel the need to say it?

Wouldn't they just know if that's the real story?

Now, next, there's a set of texts from when Carrie Roberts was at the McCabe house and was being interviewed about the incident.

Here, Jen texts the group, quote, she's telling him everything, in all caps, all the stuff.

Then there's a couple of texts in between about the interview, and then Matt says, going to miss the basketball game at this rate.

So we know that at the very least, Jen and Matt were listening in on and gossiping about Carrie's interview.

And second, we've learned again that Matt is cold.

John's been gone for three days.

First, Matt says he's just the guy.

And now that there are important interviews about the death happening, Matt is only concerned with missing his basketball game.

Another highlight of Cross was Jackson asking about the seven calls from Jen's phone to John's phone just after 12.15 a.m.

on the night of the incident.

And this question brought us our first instance of someone on the stand testifying to making butt dials.

Now we have two interesting things about these alleged butt dials.

First, all seven of them were deleted from Jen's phone.

And second, none of the calls went to voicemail.

They were manually ended by the caller.

Now this means that Jen not only butt dialed John seven times in a row, she also butt hung up each call exactly after it finished ringing.

So we're talking about at least 14 distinct, perfectly timed instances of but-to-phone contact if we're to believe Jen's testimony.

Now there's one last line of cross-examination that I want to discuss.

Alan asks Jen why she didn't run into the house and grab her brother-in-law Brian Albert, a trained first responder, and have him help John.

Then Alan goes a step further and points out, hey, someone's dead on your sister's front lawn.

She's not answering her phone.

Did you think to go in and chuck to see if she herself was in danger?

And to this, Jen says, I didn't because your client was screaming that she hit him.

She had a cracked taillight.

She was crying.

Here she's short of implying that she, Jen, immediately figured out that John was hit by a car, so she didn't have any reason to worry about her sister.

Jackson counters this and says, quote, the reason you didn't go inside the house is because you knew better.

You weren't worried about them at all because you knew what really happened, didn't you?

Jen's answer, no, at that moment, I didn't know that John was hit by a vehicle.

Now that's a bit of a contradiction from two lines earlier when she said she immediately knew it was a car accident.

Slip of the tongue, miscommunication, or did Jackson catch her in a lie here?

So after Cross, here are my final thoughts on Jen.

I don't know if she's lying, if she's covering something up.

I don't think any of us can really know for sure.

But what I will say is that to me, she comes across as if she's more concerned with siding with the prosecution and disagreeing with the defense than she is with telling the truth of what actually happened.

Now that doesn't mean she's actually being untruthful, but I do think it makes her an unreliable witness, and I'm curious to see if the jury will see it the same way.

Now, after finally finishing with All Things McCabe, we heard from the prosecution's 13th witness, Hannah Knowles, who's a forensic scientist.

Knowles testified that

given Karen's blood alcohol level of 0.093% at 9 a.m., She would have had a blood alcohol between 0.14% and 0.28% at 1245 a.m., which is more than three times the Massachusetts legal limit of 0.08%.

On cross-examination, the defense brought up the possibility that Karen could have had additional alcohol after 1245 a.m.

when she returned to John's house.

And Knowles admitted that if this were true, quote, the foundations of my calculations would be incorrect.

Then on Monday, we went through a number of the prosecution's witnesses rather quickly.

We heard from Ryan Nagel.

Ryan is the brother of Julie Nagel, who was at 34 Fairview the night of the incident for Brian Elbert Jr.'s birthday party.

So we have Ryan, his then-girlfriend Heather Maxson, and his friend Ricky, who drove to 34 Fairview around 12.30 a.m.

to pick up Julie.

Ryan testified that as Ricky's truck approached Fairview, he could see a black SUV that ended up turning onto Fairview just before they did.

Now he said that the SUV wasn't speeding and appeared to be operating safely, and he said he didn't notice any pieces missing from the car's taillight.

Now here's something interesting.

Ryan said that he never saw anyone exit the SUV and he never saw anyone laying on the ground.

But he was also firm that the passenger seat was empty.

So in his version of events, where was John?

This testimony was followed up by testimony from Ryan's now ex-girlfriend, girlfriend at the time, Heather Maxson.

Again, she was in the car with Ryan and Ricky during the trip to pick up Julie from Fairview.

And her testimony was mostly identical to Ryan's, except she said she did see a male in the passenger seat.

Now, regardless of whether you believe that Ryan was correct and John wasn't in the car, or or you believe that Heather was correct and John was in the car, the point is they both saw Karen arrive at Fairview shortly before 12.30, and they remained there for at least a couple of minutes and they didn't observe any sort of accident.

Now I bring this up because if it is in fact true that Karen connected to John's Wi-Fi by around 12.37 a.m., the time window that she could have hit him is getting really, really narrow.

Now the next witness was Sarah Levinson.

Sarah was at the house also celebrating Brian Albert Jr.'s birthday and Sarah left the party with Jen and Matt McCabe between 1.30 and 2 a.m.

And she testified that at that time she didn't see anything unusual or body-like in the yard at this time.

Then on cross-examination, Jackson brought up that Sarah had apparently been to 34 Fairview around 20 times, but she had never met their German shepherd Chloe.

And to me, he asked this to further the defense's argument that Chloe was dangerous, and the Alberts knew it, so they tried to keep her away from strangers whenever possible.

Looking to transform your business through better HR and payroll?

Meet Paycor, a paychecks company, the powerhouse solution that empowers leaders to drive results.

From recruiting and development to payroll and analytics, Paycor connects you with the people, data, and expertise you need to succeed.

Their innovative platform helps you make smarter decisions about your most valuable asset, your people.

Ready to become a better leader?

Visit paycorp.com slash leaders to learn more.

That's paycorp.com slash leaders.

This Labor Day, gear up, save big, and ride harder with cycle gear.

From August 22nd to September 1st, score up to 60% off motorcycle gear from your favorite brands.

RPM members get 50% off tire mount and balance with any new tire purchase.

Need to hit the road now?

Fast Lane Financing lets you ride now and pay later with 0% interest for three months.

And here's the big one: August 29th through September 1st only.

Buy any helmet $319 or more and get a free Cardo Spirit Bluetooth.

Supplies are limited.

Don't wait.

Cycle gear.

Get there.

Start here.

Now that brings us to testimony from Katie McLaughlin, an EMT firefighter.

Katie was one of the first emergency workers on the scene to treat John, and she testified that Karen told her the infamous, I hit him statement.

Now this is the third witness who's testified to Karen saying, I hit him.

We heard paramedic Timothy Nuttall say it, and we have, of course, heard Jen McCabe say it.

As I've said before, I think this alleged mission is one of the biggest parts of the prosecution's case.

So when it's brought up, we need to pay close attention to how many times she said it, when she said it, and to who she said it, because you can bet that the defense is going to bring up all of those aspects.

Now on that note, Katie says that Karen said, I hit him four times.

Jen McCabe said that Karen said it three times.

In Nodal's first testimony, he said that Karen said it two times.

Then in this trial, he's changed it to now back to three times.

Now maybe the witnesses disagreeing on the specific detail of how many times she said it wouldn't be that big of an issue.

But the thing is, they're all so adamant that their memories of this particular moment are really vivid.

But clearly they can't all be vividly correct because they disagree.

And get this.

Katie says that at the time Karen said, I hit him, Timothy was in the ambulance with the doors closed and the engine on.

So how is he so confident that he heard it?

Now here's the other thing about Katie.

She has a connection with Caitlin, wait for it, Albert, Brian Albert's daughter.

But the nature of their relationship depends on who you ask.

If you ask the prosecution, Katie and Caitlin went to high school together, but Katie says, quote, I wouldn't consider her to be a friend of mine.

But if you ask the defense, these two follow each other on social media, they go on trips together, they stay overnight at each other's apartments, they attend baby showers together, and there are photos of the two of them together to prove all of this.

Now, is it necessarily a huge smoking gun, a definitive proof of corruption, that the firefighter is friends with the homeowner's daughter?

No, I don't think so, but the thing thing is, what makes it look bad is that they're hiding it.

If there's nothing going on, why go through all this effort to deny it?

Then Monday finished off with retired police lieutenant Paul Gallagher, who arrived at 34 Fairview to collect evidence after John had been taken to the hospital.

Gallagher found patches of bloody snow and a broken cocktail glass.

Now he said his search was thorough, but that he didn't find a shoe, a hat, or any brightly colored taillight pieces.

He also testified that he didn't see any footprints, dog tracks, or any other sign that John could have been dragged through the snow.

And throughout direct and cross-examination, he was asked about how he collected evidence, how the evidence was stored, and how the residence at Fairview was secured and searched.

Let's hit that first point of how the evidence was collected, because this is the part that has a whole lot of people raising their eyebrows.

It turns out that Gallagher used a leaf blower to move the snow.

And then once he found spots of blood, he scooped that bloody snow, not into evidence containers, but into red solo cups.

And not even sterile ones.

These were ones that he grabbed across the street from his cop buddy.

And to top it off, he stored those solo cups, not in an evidence bag, but in a stop-and-shop grocery bag.

Now, I understand the weather was bad and this was an emergency, so you could argue that they were doing the best with what they had on hand.

And to that point, Gallagher says, quote, I expected it to be John's DNA, and I wasn't going to get a second chance on it.

It was either collect it or never have it, end quote.

But remember, Canton PD was only about a mile from 34 Fairview, and Gallagher took the time to dispatch one of his officers to go get the leaf blower, but not to get real evidence containers?

And to the second point, how was the evidence stored once it was back at the police department?

Well, according to the defense, the less than ideal treatment of the evidence continued.

They showed photos of those uncovered, unsealed solo cups of blood just sitting out in the open in the police station's garage.

And not just anywhere in the garage, they were right on the ground next to Karen's SUV.

Jackson called this a, quote, recipe for cross-contamination, and I'm inclined to agree.

During the third main thread of questioning, Gallagher said that he never asked any of the neighbors for security footage from the night of the incident, even though he admitted that he knew the neighbor across the street definitely had a working doorbell camera.

And furthermore, he said that while he was briefly inside the house at 34 Fairview, he never searched it, and he maintained that he never had any reason to do so, even though he acknowledged that at that time there was a possibility that John might have been involved in some sort of fight.

Now, throughout the day on Tuesday the 6th, the prosecution played more clips from Karen's various interviews.

In one interview, Karen says, quote, when John got out of the car at Brian Albert's house, he took my full vodka soda.

And I think this is the prosecution answering the question, of where did those cocktail glass shards come from.

They say that they came from a glass that John was holding.

In another clip, Karen says, quote, I didn't think I hit him, hit him, but could I have clipped him?

Could I have clipped him in the knee?

Incapacitated him?

He didn't look mortally wounded as far as I could see, but could I have done something that knocked him out and in his drunkenness and in the cold he didn't come to again?

Now this clip, I do think it's a strong point for the prosecution.

Because while she's not saying, you know, I definitively hit him as a declarative statement or anything, she's speculating and strongly speculating, I'd say, that she could have hit John.

And we have to think about this from the jury's point of view.

They're seeing this and they're potentially thinking, well, Karen herself thinks she could have done it.

We have her lawyers making their case on the fact that there's no collision, but now the jury is looking at evidence of the defendant saying, well, maybe there was a collision.

And I think that difference is a serious problem for the defense.

Now, the next witness for the prosecution was meteorologist Robert Gilman.

And I think the prosecution called him mainly to establish that the ground was completely frozen at that time, meaning that maybe a hit to the head on that hard ground could have killed somebody.

But I also think Gilman provided some decent points for the defense, because he testified that at around 1 a.m.

on the night of the incident, snow was only falling at around three-tenths of an inch per hour, and visibility was 1.25 miles.

And he agreed that at that time, which was around the time of Jen McCabe's lookout mission, and around the time that some of the party goers started to leave the house, he said that someone should have been able to see something laying only 30 feet away.

Then Nicholas Garino retook the stand for the final time.

We've heard from him throughout the trial.

He's a state trooper and he's in charge of cell phone extractions.

He testified that on the night of the incident there were 34 unanswered calls from Karen to John, as well as eight voicemails and two texts.

I'll read a couple of them.

At 12.37 a.m., Karen left a voicemail saying, quote, John, I effing hate you.

At 12.59 a.m., she said, John, I'm here with your effing kids.

No one knows where the F you are, you effing pervert.

At 1.10 a.m., she left a voicemail saying, you're effing using me right now.

You're effing another girl.

Now, is it a good look to be throwing F-bombs at your boyfriend, who it turns out was dead or dying at the time?

No.

But it's so bad of a look that I almost think it comes back around and helps the defense.

And what I mean by that is that if she intentionally and knowingly killed him, which is what that second degree murder charge says, would she really go call him to scream at him?

If she were trying to use these calls to establish an alibi, I would imagine she'd try to come off as a little bit more loving, wouldn't you?

As is, I think the messages are so raw and so vulgar that they actually come across as genuine emotion and help Karen's case.

And Garino's testimony did sneak in one more very important tidbit.

one that I really hammered home earlier in the video.

And that's the fact that Karen connected to John's Wi-Fi at 12:37 a.m.

and he also testified that her phone would have been at most 300 feet from the home at that point.

So now we know: A, we have direct evidence refuting Jen McCabe's testimony that Karen's SUV was still at 34 Fairview at 12:45 a.m.

And B, the window that Karen could have hit John is getting really small.

Like, we have mere minutes between when Ryan Nagel and Heather Maxson put her safely driving up to 34 Fairview and when her phone puts her back at John's house.

Then after Garina, we heard brief testimony from Lieutenant Charles Ray, who did a well-being check on John's niece and nephew on the morning of the incident.

Then the final witness on Tuesday was Lieutenant Kevin O'Hara, who helped search for evidence outside of 34 Fairview a couple of hours after the incident.

He said that his team found a sneaker and six or seven pieces of taillight that matched Karen's Lexus.

Now remember, Gallagher and his trusty leaf blower, they didn't find any taillight pieces a couple of hours earlier.

But regardless of that, throughout the trials, I've always thought that the taillight evidence, along with the witnesses saying that Karen said I hit him, are the strongest pieces of the prosecution's evidence.

I personally see holes in each of those that I think cast reasonable doubt on them, but nonetheless, I do think they're the best thing the prosecution has.

So I'm always curious to see how the defense will handle them.

And in this case, Jackson didn't really go after O'Hara's background or his methods of evidence collecting or anything like that, but he instead went the route of showing that there could have been opportunity for someone else to plant evidence.

Jackson said, quote, for some time before you got there, the scene could have been accessed by anyone.

He also pointed out that there were at least six people at the scene at the time who were not from Kevin's team.

And he got Kevin to admit that he saw no crime scene tape, barricades, or police presence that could have prevented someone else from accessing the scene.

And while I do think that Jackson made some good points, I personally think that the defense still has a lot more work to do when it comes to discrediting this taillight evidence.

I do think it's a lot to just ask the jury to buy into the police straight-up planting evidence.

And while I think the defense has made some headway in showing that there was opportunity for someone to do so, I don't think that the opportunity is enough.

So I think we should expect to hear more taillight talk from both sides.

Then we kicked off Wednesday with state trooper Connor Keefe briefly taking a stand for the prosecution.

Now that's last name Keefe, not O'Keefe, keep that in mind.

And he showed jurors John's shoe as well as two pieces of clear taillight that he helped process at the scene.

On cross-examination, he was hesitant to admit that he had ever worked with Michael Proctor.

I can't say I really blame him there.

I wouldn't want to be associated with Proctor.

But he eventually admitted that he and Proctor did interview Sarah Levinson together.

Keefe also observed John's autopsy performed by the Commonwealth Medical Examiner, and the defense said, quote, you left without her ruling it a homicide, correct?

That question was objected to and the objection was sustained, but we know that this is true and the defense was making the point early.

Next, we heard from Jessica Hyde, a digital forensics examiner.

And if you thought you heard the last of House Long to Die in Cold, buckle up because we heard about it for hours more.

And similar to the testimony from the prosecution's other digital forensics expert, that was Ian Wiffin, this testimony was very long, it was very technical, so I'm here to try to give a high-level summary.

And the TLDR is that Hyde agrees with Wiffin's findings that Jen McCabe searched House Long to Die in Cold between 6 and 7, not between 2 and 3.

And to support her argument, she explained that a single search can leave multiple artifacts in different places on a phone.

and an artifact is like a digital footprint.

Hyde said that Jen's search left multiple footprints, but only one of them is associated with the 227 timestamp.

The rest point to the 623 timestamp.

Now, Alessi pointed out on cross-examination that her stance on this issue has changed somewhat since the case started.

In a May 2023 report, she said that the search was associated with a timestamp of 22740.

And likewise, in the first trial last year, when asked whether she could definitively rule out that the search happened at 227, she said that it was unlikely, but that she couldn't rule it out completely.

Now you'll also remember that Wiffin testified that Jen's searches were deleted by the phone itself, not by the user.

Hyde agreed, and she even said that the user can't delete a tab even if they wanted to.

They can close a tab, they can delete a search, but they cannot delete a tab.

And she said the reason that the tab appears to be deleted is because it was living in what's called their right-ahead log.

This is an intermediate database within a phone that basically holds incoming and outgoing information.

So in other words, it contains both deleted data and data that hasn't yet been delivered to a specific database.

And because of that distinction, Hyde said that it's wrong to assume that data has been deleted just because it's living in this intermediate database.

And likewise, she had an explanation for why the seven alleged butt dials from Jen to John appeared to be deleted from Jen's phone.

Hyde said that Jen's model of iPhone can store up to 200 recent calls at once before it automatically deletes the oldest one.

And she testified that the calls from John were behind that 200th call.

They were therefore removed by the phone, not by Jen.

Now at this point, the jury has heard so much house long to die in cold talk that I can only imagine what their take is.

If I had to guess, since they've now heard two experts say that it occurred between six and seven, not two and three,

I would imagine they're leaning in that direction, but who knows if that will change when the defense calls their cell phone experts.

The thing I want to point out is that this is kind of devolved into a trial within a trial.

And what I mean by that is that whenever House Long is brought up, suddenly the defense becomes the ones that are prosecuting Jen and the prosecution become the ones defending her.

And sticking with that analogy, if the jury finds Jen quote unquote guilty of making the search at 227, it is probably game over for the prosecution.

But if they find her innocent and may agree that the search was at 623, they're still at square one when it comes to Karen's guilt.

Do you see what I mean?

Like this mini trial we're having for Jen, yes, it's important, but it doesn't actually answer any fundamental questions about Karen's guilt.

And on that note, we ended the day with the prosecution playing another clip from Karen's interviews, where she says, quote, Jen McCabe, it's me or her.

Either I'm going down, Jen, or you are.

Now that brings us to Thursday, which was dedicated to testimony from from Yuri Buchanick, a Massachusetts state police sergeant and the supervisor of none other than Michael Proctor at the time of the incident.

Now right off the bat, we heard something interesting.

Buchanick stated that his understanding was that Karen had made statements, quote, questioning if she had hit him, which is more in line with the defense's stance that Karen was making interrogative statements, in other words, those are questions, about hitting John, not declarative statements.

Now, Buchanik also testified to observing observing the injuries on John's body at the hospital, which included some blood pooling under his head, blood and swelling in both eyes, small cuts to his face, and abrasions or cuts to his right arm.

He said that he found a pile of John's clothes, including a sweatshirt, shirt, and pants, which he showed to the jury.

He also testified to finding one of John's shoes at the hospital, but there was a little bit of a slip-up when he was showing it to the jury.

The prosecution brought him an evidence bag and asked Buchanik if if this is a shoe you recovered from the hospital.

And he's like, nope, that's not it.

That's the shoe that was found at 34 Fairview, John's other shoe.

Then the judge called a break and when they returned, Bukinik was again asked and now he was like, yes, this is the hospital shoe, not the 34 Fairview shoe.

So a bit of a blunder.

It could have been an honest mistake, but in a case where evidence management is already under such heavy scrutiny, I do think these little things could add up for the jury.

Now after the hospital, Buchanik Buchanik and Proctor visited Karen at her parents' house, and at that time, he said that her car was missing a large chunk of its rear right taillight.

So they seized Karen's phone and car and brought the car to the garage at the Canton Police Department, even though Canton PD had already been removed from the investigation at this point because of the connection between Bryant Albert and Kevin Albert, a Canton PD officer.

Now, Buchanik testified that he never touched Karen's car once it was in the Canton PD garage, and he said that he never saw Proctor touch it either.

Now to be clear on the timeline, Bukinick says that they got Karen's SUV at around 4.15.

O'Hara from the search team arrived to 34 Fairview at 4.56 p.m.

and his team found that first piece of taillight at 5.45 p.m.

So if evidence was planted, which is what the defense is alleging, the time period for that to happen is not terribly wide.

We're talking only about 45 minutes.

But speaking of people who might plant evidence, the prosecution tried to get ahead of questions that they knew the defense might ask about Proctor.

So on direct examination, they asked Bukinik about his relationship with Proctor, and he admitted that he was on a text thread with Proctor and others, where Proctor made comments on the case.

Three of those read, quote, funny, I'm going through his R-word client's phone.

No nudes yet.

And then, I hate that man, I truly hate him, which is in reference to defense lawyer David Yannetti.

Bukinik said he sent a thumbs-up emoji in response, and as a result of these texts and others, we know that Proctor was fired and Bukenik admitted that he was found guilty of quote, failing to properly supervise and or counsel a subordinate, and as punishment lost five days of vacation time.

Now lastly, we saw a lot of media, including videos and photos of Karen's car, which Bukinik described as missing a taillight in the photos, videos, as well as from his own first-hand knowledge.

And we also saw surveillance surveillance footage from the bars that show Karen ordering and consuming a number of drinks.

Now, after direct examination, both Buchanik and Jackson for the defense got a little bit testy on cross-examination, I will say.

To kick it off, Buchanik was really resistant to saying that Proctor was the lead investigator on the case.

And then he was really resistant to saying that Proctor was involved in many aspects of the case.

And to be honest, I got some Jen McCabe vibes here.

I think that Jen and Buchanik both give off this aura that's like refusing to admit that the defense is right about anything.

And to me, sorry, it looks a little shifty and I think the jury will be smart enough to see that.

So after we finally established that Procter was heavily involved in the case, Jackson asked if the investigation was done properly.

And Bukinik said, quote, this investigation was conducted professionally, with integrity, and all evidence collected, all the statements collected, pointed in one direction.

There was no bias influence on the evidence, on the information that was collected, or which the direction the investigation pointed, end quote.

Jackson then said, quote, do you believe that Mike De Proctor's involvement in this case tainted the investigation?

End quote.

Buchanick said no, and then after some pushing, some back and forth about the exact wording, he says, the investigation was handled with integrity by Michael Proctor.

That was a quote.

Now, just to refresh your memory, that's the same Michael Proctor who said, quote, quote, funny, I'm going through his R-word client's phone, no nudes so far.

So that's what honor and integrity mean to the state police, apparently.

Now, another important point from Cross, Bukinik admitted that early in the investigation, he thought it was possible that John was involved in some sort of fight, like getting hit in the face with a cocktail glass.

But he admitted that he didn't secure the house at 34 Fairview and only interviewed three of the party goers from that night.

And he also admitted that a report about the incident wasn't written until almost a year and a half later.

Jackson also pointed out that there was no chain of custody log for John's clothes for the time that the state police had them.

And throughout this and other discussions of the evidence, Jackson was always quick to point out that Proctor was involved at every turn, that he always had access to all the evidence.

And that's consistent with the defense's opening argument.

opening statement rather that proctor had his hands literally and figuratively all over this case.

And again, that's because the defense wants the jury to view the case and all of the evidence through the lens of Proctor was biased.

That was the end of the day on Thursday, but it wasn't the end of Cross.

And I think we can expect a lot more back and forth between Bukinik and Jackson.

I'll wait till the end of his testimony to give my final reading on Bukenik, but for now, I put him pretty high on the evasive scale, just my opinion.

Now, with all of this Proctor talk, a lot of people have been wondering when he'll take the stand.

I personally don't think the prosecution is going to call him at all because I don't think it would help their case any.

It could even hurt it given all that's come out about Proctor.

So I think we'll have to wait for the defense to call him.

Now on that note, Karen herself said on Wednesday that the prosecution is quote almost over.

So it's possible that they'll be wrapping up soon.

We'll have to wait and see what happens next week, Annie.

Talk to you later.

Alright guys, well, you just heard from Elena.

It was a jam-packed week.

Next week is also expected to be a pretty busy week.

And think about it, although we've seen so many witnesses and heard from them, there are still many more to go.

We have Proctor, we have Higgins, we have the ARCA experts, and all of that is going to be some pretty interesting and...

quite honestly, probably even damning testimony.

So we have a ways to go.

We're going to be entering week four next week.

It is slated to be an eight-week long trial.

I will be there.

I'm not going to give the exact dates just because I don't know what Looney Tunes are out there on the streets, but I am going to be in Boston myself very soon and I will be in the courtroom covering it directly with you as well.

So stay tuned for that.

Other than that, guys, we will be back on next week.

I will give you the recap again on Friday with Elena and we will be live streaming day to day over on my YouTube channel.

So thank you guys so much for tuning in.

Let me know what you guys think about this case.

What bucket are you in?

Are you in bucket one?

Karen is guilty.

Bucket two, she is innocent and being framed.

Or bucket three, too much doubt to know.

Let me know where you guys sit.

All right.

Thank you so much.

And until the next one, don't drink and drive.

Be nice and don't kill people.

Stay the hell away from Boston just for now.

Just for now.

Just stay on the side of caution and just, you know, be responsible and make good choices.

Not to sound like a teacher, but that's all I got for you.

All right.

Bye.

Want to stop engine problems before they start?

Pick up a can of CFOA motor treatment.

C-Foam helps engines start easier, run smoother, and last longer.

Trusted by millions every day, C-Foam is safe and easy to use in any engine.

Just pour it in your fuel tank.

Make the proven choice with C-Foam.

Available everywhere.

Automotive products are sold.

Seafoam!

So easy for a year to go by and you're in the same place because there's so much going on in the world today.

Hey, everybody, it's Tony Robbins.

So the real question is, how do you really get yourself to be in a place where you truly follow through, where you actually get the results that you really want?

Listen, you really need to get yourself a coach.

You need a professional who's already got results.

You need something outside you.

Someone that's like what a coach does.

The most successful people in the world have coaches.

If I want to play in that league, I have to model what the successful people do, period.

Our company ended on a 69% revenue growth, which is ridiculous because we're talking about millions of dollars.

Tony Robbins Results Coach will get you to where you want to be in health, finances, career, and beyond.

If you'd like to test out one of my top coaches, we will give you a 30-minute free coaching session.

Go to tonyrobbins.com to get started today.

That's tonyrobbins.com.

You're juggling a lot.

Full-time job, side hustle, maybe a family, and now you're thinking about grad school?

That's not crazy.

That's ambitious.

At American Public University, we respect the hustle and we're built for it.

Our flexible online master's programs are made for real life because big dreams deserve a real path.

At APU, the bigger your ambition, the better we fit.

Learn more about our 40-plus career relevant master's degrees and certificates at apu.apus.edu.