0:02

Hey, true crime besties. Welcome

0:04

back to an all new episode of serial

0:06

asleep. Hey

0:26

everybody, welcome back to another episode

0:28

of serial asleep with me, Annie

0:30

Elise. We're doing a bonus

0:32

edition today, a bonus episode because due

0:35

to popular demand and so many requests

0:37

from you guys when I did my

0:39

last week's episode, you want Karen

0:41

Reed trial recaps. So

0:43

in addition to Chad Daybell dumbball

0:46

loser face recaps, we're also going

0:48

to be doing Karen Reed recaps

0:50

week to week because the trial

0:52

is now underway. Now for

0:54

those of you who are like, wait, what's Karen

0:56

Reed? Why is everybody requesting it? Is

0:58

it a crazy trial? It is an

1:01

insane, insane case. I'm going to give

1:03

you a tiny little glimmer of the

1:05

backstory in case you're not familiar. And

1:07

then I will link in the show notes,

1:09

the episode where it's like the full deep

1:11

dive on this case, because it is for

1:13

sure a roller coaster guys. So

1:16

basically Karen Reed is a woman who

1:18

is now currently on trial for killing

1:20

her Boston police officer boyfriend. It

1:23

all went down. I believe it was what early in January,

1:27

I think it was. Don't quote me on that.

1:29

It was like a winter night and she had

1:31

been at the bar with him drinking. They had

1:33

been drinking with some friends, some colleagues of his,

1:36

and then they were going to a house party

1:38

at another fellow officer's house. For

1:40

whatever reason, Karen ended up dropping John

1:42

off her boyfriend at that party and

1:44

not going inside herself. And then she

1:46

drove to the house and went to

1:49

sleep. Now the next morning, John

1:51

was found dead in the snow. So

1:53

she's being accused of backing into him, most

1:56

likely under the influence because she had been

1:58

drinking a lot that night and. He

2:00

was left to die in the snow, hypothermia,

2:02

he died. However, what's interesting

2:04

is she and her defense is claiming,

2:06

no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

2:08

I did not kill him. He went

2:10

inside that house party, woke fellow officers,

2:12

he had beef with them, they killed

2:14

him and then left him for dead

2:17

and they're now framing me. And

2:19

I have to say, some of the evidence

2:21

from the defense is pretty compelling. There are

2:24

some very interesting Google searches from people who

2:26

were inside that house party at two in

2:28

the morning. There is some alleged

2:31

colluding, you could say, between different officers

2:33

and people saying, no, no, no, keep

2:35

quiet, don't share this information while the

2:37

investigation was well underway. There's

2:40

a lot of things, not for nothing too, but a lot

2:42

of people are saying, if she reversed into John, where's

2:44

the damage to his body? He's super tall.

2:47

Like, there's a lot of things, guys, that

2:49

don't make sense and I'm not gonna rehash

2:51

it all here because if you are listening

2:53

to the recap, chances are you are familiar

2:55

with the case. But again, if you're not,

2:57

pause this really quick, go

3:00

listen to the deep dive, it's linked in the show notes below, and

3:02

then come back because so many

3:04

of you have been following this and

3:06

rightfully so, want these trial recaps because

3:08

it is bizarre. And I just

3:11

gotta say, the defense is doing a

3:13

killer job right now, no pun intended,

3:16

but they really are. And what's so

3:18

interesting about this case too, guys, is

3:20

that there are so

3:22

many people outside of the courtroom, they

3:24

have been since early on with just

3:27

the hearings and all of that going

3:29

on even before the trial, and they

3:31

are Karen Reed supporters. They're actually holding

3:33

up poster boards saying, free Karen Reed,

3:35

Karen Reed's innocent, all of these things.

3:38

And so we haven't seen something like

3:40

that in a really long time unless

3:42

it's like a celebrity or somebody super

3:44

notable. So for this just kind of

3:47

lay person to now have this whole

3:49

community rallying behind her, it seems, does

3:52

that carry weight? Is there some

3:54

truth to these corruption and conspiracy

3:56

allegations? So Let's jump into what's

3:58

been going down this week. The Trial last

4:00

week. We started with opening statement. There wasn't

4:03

anything to to crazy but I did touch

4:05

on it in the headline highlights Thursday

4:07

episode But now we're just gonna talk through

4:09

everything and it's going down this week

4:11

and trial. So on Monday, May six, that

4:14

twenty twenty four. it was day five

4:16

of trial because remember, it was opening statement

4:18

earlier and it was a full day

4:20

with a lot of information. But there were

4:22

three main things that were covered this

4:24

day. The first were the two separate nine

4:26

or one calls that were made on

4:28

the morning that John's. Body was found

4:30

the second and probably the biggest thing

4:32

that was covered had to do with

4:35

the crime scene as well as how

4:37

the evidence was also process honestly what

4:39

kind of just like a completely botched

4:41

mass and kind of health care and

4:43

defend teams are you? And so on

4:45

the morning the john was found at

4:47

Canton Police Department with processing. Seen. Rape

4:49

however usually they would it be

4:51

processing a homicide see but. John. It

4:53

still wasn't officially declared dead yet at

4:55

the time, even after his body was

4:57

at the hospital. That was because they

5:00

were still waiting for his body temperature

5:02

to come back up due to the

5:04

very unlikely but still slightly possible chance

5:06

of him coming through. If the hypothermia

5:08

had a be preserved, his body doesn't.

5:10

He wasn't officially declared dead yet. They're

5:12

technically was still no homicide that had

5:14

occurred. So instead of the crime scene

5:16

being handled by state police, it was

5:18

the Canton police who were left in

5:20

charge. And that's where things got really

5:22

messy. The defense questioned multiple different

5:24

aspects of how the crime scene was

5:26

handled. But before we get into all

5:28

of that and how it was handled,

5:30

they discuss why it was a major

5:32

conflict of interest for the Can't and

5:35

police to even be doing this investigation

5:37

to begin with. No, Brian Alber is

5:39

from the Boston Police Department, which obviously

5:41

isn't the same as Canton, but we

5:43

heard that the reason why the conflict

5:45

of interest is because brain brother Chris.

5:47

Is. Actually what the courts described

5:49

as quote one of the best

5:51

investigators from the cat and police.

5:54

Department. Who can. Kind of

5:56

see where are these family ties now? Third

5:58

to get thrown in and things. get

6:00

a little questionable and a little messy.

6:04

Conflicts aside, let's get into the actual

6:06

crime scene processing because there was a

6:08

lot that the defense believed should have

6:10

been handled differently. For one,

6:12

they questioned why no notes had

6:14

even been taken at the crime scene.

6:16

Probably the biggest thing that was questioned

6:18

was in regards to cross-contamination and the

6:20

actual evidence collection as well. For

6:22

starters, there was no crime scene tape. No

6:25

crime scene tape ever put up at the

6:27

scene. We heard that there was a

6:29

reason for this and that due to the wind, the

6:31

tape just wasn't staying where it needed to be, which

6:33

is why none of it was ever placed. But

6:36

they also mentioned that it wasn't really a

6:38

huge issue because nobody was coming out of

6:40

their houses, nobody was trying to get involved,

6:42

and no media had shown up at this

6:44

point or anything like that. So

6:46

pretty much stating that there weren't tons of people

6:48

that needed to be kept in line and

6:50

away from the crime scene because it was really

6:53

only the people who needed to be there and

6:55

they all knew what they were doing. So there

6:57

wasn't really a reason to secure the crime scene,

6:59

again, according to them. Now

7:01

probably the biggest thing that the defense

7:04

questioned was why in the

7:06

world was the evidence preserved in

7:08

red solo cups that were from

7:10

a neighbor's house instead of preserving

7:12

it in actual sterile evidence containers,

7:14

which that's a fair question.

7:16

Why you put an evidence in solo party

7:18

cups? It makes no sense. And the neighbor

7:20

also wasn't just a random neighbor. He was

7:22

also one of the higher ups for none

7:25

other than Canton Police Department. And

7:28

the cups were not only not sterile

7:30

at all, but they were also put

7:32

into a plastic grab and go bag,

7:34

which was unsealed and could have easily,

7:36

very easily, in my opinion, led to

7:39

cross contamination. We heard

7:41

that the reason for all of that was

7:43

because the lieutenant was in his personal vehicle

7:45

when he responded. So he had no sterile

7:48

bags, no sterile containers with him, as well

7:50

as no evidence markers for these crime scene

7:52

photographs. Which I've gotta just say, I'm

7:54

not a cop. I don't know how all of that works,

7:56

but maybe even if you're the

7:59

first to respond and- the lieutenant, if you

8:01

don't have the material with you, maybe

8:03

you wait until you get the

8:06

proper materials to collect evidence, rather

8:08

than just going and grabbing a, you know,

8:10

red party cup from a game of King's

8:12

Cup. I don't know, like, I

8:14

think that there could have definitely been a

8:16

better approach, but again, I'm not a professional.

8:19

But something else that was brought up during the

8:21

first witness testimony was the

8:24

whole clearing the snow with a leaf blower,

8:26

and then ultimately putting the pieces of evidence

8:28

into that solo cup, or multiple solo cups,

8:30

I should say. But it was never brought

8:32

up about any taillights that were initially found,

8:35

and the witness even said that they cleared

8:37

the snow almost all the way to the

8:39

ground. So from my understanding, it's

8:41

not like it could have been hiding under

8:43

two feet of snow. Not only

8:46

did the witness not see any pieces

8:48

of these taillight, but they also didn't

8:50

see John's shoe or his baseball hat.

8:53

So just to be extremely clear, the witness

8:55

said that they only saw what looked to

8:57

be blood in the snow, as well as

9:00

pieces of the drinking glass. Now

9:02

that tidbit of information is really important, at

9:04

least for the defense's side of things, since

9:06

they're of course trying to argue that it's

9:09

super fishy that those pieces of evidence

9:11

weren't found until after Karen's car was

9:13

taken in, but not at the initial

9:16

crime scene. And lastly,

9:18

the defense argued that Katie McLaughlin,

9:20

the paramedic firefighter who testified over

9:22

the course of two days last

9:24

week, had committed perjury. During

9:27

her testimony, Katie claimed that she knew of

9:29

somebody named Caitlin Albert, but that she didn't

9:31

really know her on a personal level,

9:33

or even a friendly level. And

9:35

the defense argued with pictures of the two

9:38

of them on a beach vacation together,

9:40

no less, that her statement was just complete

9:42

bullshit, a complete lie. They obviously were friends.

9:44

She did know her. They

9:46

also presented pictures from the two of them

9:48

at a baby shower back in June of

9:51

2021, which I gotta say, it's pretty recent

9:53

in the grand scheme of things. But

9:55

to put that into perspective, that was

9:57

only about eight months before John's death.

10:00

Now the best part was that the defense

10:02

team didn't even find those pictures themselves. They

10:04

straight up said that it was people on

10:07

the internet who started sending all of these

10:09

pictures in. And along with

10:11

those two pictures, they were also sent pictures

10:13

of their high school yearbook, which showed that

10:15

they were teammates on a track team, and

10:17

it looked like they knew each other pretty

10:19

well. So from last week when

10:21

she was saying that she didn't know her at

10:24

all and didn't know on a personal or friendly

10:26

level, uh, you went to high school

10:28

together, you played track together, you were on the

10:30

er, played track or ran track, whatever it's called,

10:32

you were on the same team together, you went

10:34

to a baby shower together, eight months before John's

10:37

death, the two of you were on a beach

10:39

vacation together as well, there's photos of you two together on a

10:41

beach, and like, how do you know that we can't even

10:44

read personal much? It's

10:46

not making sense to me. Well,

10:49

I personally just can't even understand why you

10:51

would even try to say that you knew

10:54

her but didn't really know her when you know that

10:56

it's a complete lie, and one

10:58

that can easily be backed up by photos. I mean,

11:01

we all know that nothing is a

11:03

secret on the internet, right? And

11:05

especially in these cases, which are

11:07

so public online, online sleuths will

11:09

figure out every single detail. Leave

11:12

no stone unturned, bring

11:14

it over to the Kate Middleton hoax that everybody

11:16

thought was going on, which sadly it's not, she's

11:18

just very ill, but you know what I'm talking

11:21

about, like, the sleuths are going to sleuth it

11:23

out. There is no point in lying. Now

11:25

what's interesting is this wasn't really focused on a

11:27

whole lot from the judge's side of things, because

11:30

the judge stated that she was going to pretty

11:32

much just get to it further on in the

11:34

trial before Caitlin Albert took the stand. So pretty

11:36

much you put it on the back burner, even

11:39

though the defense argued to the judge that his

11:41

concern was that it get handled before Caitlin took

11:43

the stand. Because since

11:45

Katie McLaughlin testified on

11:49

Thursday and Friday, we received

11:51

a deluge of photographs

11:54

that put her with

11:57

Caitlin Albert on many

12:00

different occasions after

12:02

they graduated high school. We received

12:05

information from their high school yearbook that

12:07

they were more than just

12:09

acquaintances in high school. They were

12:11

teammates on the track team. And

12:14

even after I sent that email with

12:16

the photographs that I attached to it,

12:19

late last night, we received another

12:22

photo where Katie McLaughlin and Kaitlyn

12:24

Albert are standing next to each

12:26

other in a photo at a

12:29

baby shower in June of 2021,

12:31

about eight months

12:34

before John O'Keefe's death.

12:38

It's very clear to us that

12:41

Katie McLaughlin perjured herself. Hold

12:43

on one second. So on top of that, we

12:45

can discuss this later. I'd like to get the

12:48

trial started. That's fine,

12:50

Your Honor. My

12:52

belief, my strong belief, is

12:54

that we need to determine this today. And

12:57

the reason is that Kaitlyn Albert is coming

12:59

up as a witness for the Commonwealth. She

13:02

faces the same areas of

13:04

cross-examination that Katie McLaughlin faced. And

13:07

these photos are relevant to her

13:09

cross-examination. OK. All right. So aside

13:11

from the Rule 14 issue, I also think

13:15

this is cumulative. I don't have

13:18

the email. I do have the

13:20

photos. But we can address this.

13:22

When do you expect that Albert?

13:24

I'm sorry. What's her name? Kaitlyn

13:27

Albert. I'd

13:30

say midweek, probably. It depends on how

13:32

far we go today. So we'll address to

13:34

see the today or tomorrow. So

13:37

then on Tuesday, May 7, it was day

13:39

six. And day six was a pretty big

13:41

day because it's when the first real piece

13:43

of physical evidence in the trial was actually

13:45

shown, other than just kind of the crappy

13:48

evidence photos. The evidence was the

13:50

broken cocktail glass that was found in the

13:52

snow next to John's body. It

13:54

was one of those pieces of evidence that

13:56

was later put into those plastic cups, which

13:58

caused the whole evidence collection contraption. People

14:00

saying that it was contaminated, not collected

14:03

the right way, which, fair. So

14:06

the prosecution argued that the glass matched the

14:08

one that John was seen on surveillance footage

14:10

holding in his hands when he left the

14:12

waterfall grill, because they had been drinking out

14:14

earlier in the evening as I had mentioned.

14:17

The defense argued that they really couldn't be too

14:19

sure just from the footage, and

14:21

they argued that they should have searched the Albert

14:23

House for any matching glasses, instead of just assuming

14:25

that this was a glass from the bar earlier

14:28

that day. Which, I also

14:30

think that that's fair too. Maybe there is a matching

14:32

glass inside. It would prove that he had been inside.

14:35

Or you do match it back

14:37

to the bar, but footage alone? Not

14:39

that it's always grainy. I know that CCTV

14:41

could be pretty crisp, but don't

14:44

you want to go a step further and really

14:46

clarify where that glass came from? I don't know. Again,

14:48

not a professional. Not a professional. But

14:50

both of those arguments are really trying to prove

14:52

two opposite sides. The prosecution

14:55

is trying to prove, based on the evidence, that

14:57

John never made it inside the Albert House, which

14:59

would indicate that Karen is the one who ran

15:01

him over and killed him before he could ever

15:03

even get inside. But the defense

15:05

is basically trying to prove the exact opposite,

15:07

and especially that John did make it inside

15:09

of that Albert home, which would

15:12

mean that Karen had left him alive and well

15:14

and wasn't involved in this at all, that he

15:16

had gone into this house party and something had

15:18

happened inside. Again, this would indicate

15:20

that if that were true, something would have

15:22

had to have happened to John while he

15:25

was inside that house at this after

15:27

party, making it virtually impossible for Karen

15:29

to have murdered him if she was

15:31

already long gone and at home. Now,

15:34

in relation to the evidence, we saw some photographs

15:37

of the piece of the taillight in the snow

15:39

in Brian Albert's front yard. Now,

15:41

I do want to say that before you

15:43

form any opinions, you should look up pictures

15:45

of the taillight evidence and those photos, because

15:48

I will say it's a pretty large piece

15:50

of plastic, and it's bright red in contrast

15:52

to the white snow. This

15:54

Taillight is supposed to have been found in the exact same location

15:56

as that broken glass, but if you were to find it, you

15:58

would have to look at it. Remember and a

16:00

witness from the day earlier said that

16:02

he did not see that tail light.

16:04

So with all that information, do what

16:07

you want with that. I'm not here

16:09

to sway any opinion one way or

16:11

another, but I do want to give

16:13

you all of the information the defense

16:15

also brought forward and can't. Officer Lieutenant

16:17

Michael Link who was on the stand

16:19

briefly the day before and that before

16:21

the court broke for the day and

16:23

once he took the stand at the

16:25

defense really late into him from multiple

16:27

different things. he was the responding officer

16:29

after John's body. Was found and the

16:31

first thing that he had questioned word

16:33

why had he dispatched that john as

16:35

to dad head trauma and specifically said

16:37

and I quote i don't know if

16:39

he's been in a fight or something

16:41

Officer Lane testified that a basically wasn't

16:43

that deep and said that there were

16:45

multiple possibility the running through his head

16:47

after seeing me injuries. But running

16:50

off of that the defense then question why

16:52

Officer Link never went inside of the our

16:54

home to check have any signs that if

16:56

I had occurred especially if a fight with

16:58

something that he had been the one to

17:00

initially even bring up in all of this.

17:03

Now Officer Link was question without the

17:05

Jury President about his relationship and his

17:07

friendship with Brian Albert and this friendship

17:09

was brought up at the time in

17:12

front of the jury on Tuesday but

17:14

later question at without the Jury President.

17:16

but apparently the defense had learned of

17:18

an incident back in two thousand and

17:20

two were Officer Lane head off duty,

17:22

inserted himself into a group of men

17:24

who were fighting outside of the bar,

17:26

one of those men specifically being Brian's

17:28

younger brother named Chris and I think

17:31

that the defense was trying to set

17:33

up a standpoint. That because Officer Lanka

17:35

new the family and because they were all

17:37

friends, his involvement in the case could very

17:39

easily have been corrupt. Officer Link however argued

17:42

that even though he had known all three

17:44

of the Albert Brothers his whole life, it's

17:46

just from living in the same area and

17:48

being around the same age as which I

17:51

can see in a small town, that does

17:53

made total sense. He says he really only

17:55

had a closer and personal relationship with Chris,

17:57

which was why he inserted himself that. He

18:01

testified that the incident had nothing to

18:03

do with his ability to handle the

18:05

investigation even if Bryan was in the

18:08

center of all of it. Similarly to

18:10

the defense bringing in an incident between

18:12

Officer Length and the Albert family, him

18:15

the judge allow the prosecution to discuss

18:17

a separate incident between Officer Lank and

18:19

the Albert family which they argued showed

18:21

Officer Laying had some bad blood with

18:24

Albert family meeting the his involvement wasn't

18:26

corrupt or a conflict of interest at

18:28

all see apparently one. Of the other

18:31

Albert Brothers named it Can had hit

18:33

somebody's car and then gone over to

18:35

Brian past parked his car there. and

18:37

that's where Officer Link investigated the accident

18:39

and charges were ultimately filed against it

18:41

ten after the investigation that was led

18:43

by the officer Length which the prosecution

18:45

argued pretty much showed that Officer Lank

18:47

wasn't biased toward any of the Albert

18:50

family, and if anything, he sort of

18:52

had a rocky relationship with them because

18:54

of this incident. Officer Link

18:56

was also the person who transport those

18:58

solo cups of evidence in that grab

19:00

and go bad from the crime scene

19:02

now and he testified at that after

19:05

transporting the evidence from the crime scene,

19:07

they went into temporary evidence which interestingly

19:09

enough is accessible to everybody. I didn't

19:11

observe any any dirt and the glass.

19:13

Excuse me though. So

19:17

there was. No

19:19

Said it was because. You're

19:26

where the theme as you say Police Crime

19:28

Lab. Warns

19:30

against collecting any biological material

19:33

if anything made of plastic

19:35

friends. Were

19:37

that know after the well

19:39

when you scooped up the

19:42

blood videotape that process so

19:44

we know exactly which was

19:46

things where I don't recall

19:48

if it was videotaped but

19:51

we did not document which

19:53

school point in which couple.

19:56

Friends. But if it's a brown paper bag, this is

19:58

evidence that you simply just pulled over the years. and

20:00

just put a red evidence seal on it to make sure

20:02

that that's secure and not tampered with, correct? That would be

20:04

one way to do it, yes. I don't recall if I

20:06

left them in the bag or took them out of the

20:08

bag, I don't recall. If you left them in the bag,

20:11

you likely would have... If you're

20:13

poking them into evidence, you likely would have used some

20:15

red crime scenes. Oh, yes, not crime scenes. It's evidence,

20:17

yes. If I had left them

20:19

in the bag, I would have put the property label

20:21

right on the bag. So everybody can see it? Yes.

20:24

Okay, there's an evidence bag with important evidence

20:26

in it, don't mess with it, it's

20:28

secure, correct? Yes. The whole

20:30

portion of testimony was just kind of

20:33

wild because Officer Leink also said during

20:35

the testimony that he wasn't sure what

20:37

the protocol was for tagging evidence as

20:39

well as taping and opening or not

20:41

opening evidence bags, which just

20:43

doesn't look good at all. Again, why are you

20:45

handling anything if you don't know the proper protocol?

20:49

So then on day seven, the trial focused

20:51

heavily on the demeanor of Karen and John

20:53

in those final hours before his death. Remember,

20:56

the prosecution is arguing that Karen and

20:58

John were in a rocky relationship. They

21:00

were drunk, they were fighting. So because

21:02

of that, Karen ultimately ran him over

21:04

with her car as a result of

21:06

said argument. Well, the defense

21:08

is still arguing that no, that's

21:10

not true at all. Karen was

21:12

framed. Karen is innocent. Surveillance

21:15

footage of the couple as well as their

21:17

friend group at that bar that they had

21:19

all attended just hours before John's death called

21:22

C.F. McCarthy's was then brought into question. And

21:25

the surveillance footage shown to jurors was

21:27

pretty much just very casual and very

21:29

normal between a couple. But some

21:31

of their friends who were there with them

21:33

that night specifically also testified to their demeanor.

21:36

One friend named Nicholas Koloskyafis. I

21:38

don't think I'm saying that right.

21:40

Koloskyafis, but it's a hard one,

21:42

but we'll call him Nick. He

21:45

testified that the couple wasn't just

21:47

acting normal. They were actually acting

21:49

extremely affectionate, extremely loving toward

21:51

one another. So much so

21:53

that his own partner literally asked him why

21:55

he didn't act that way toward her, referring

21:58

to the way that John was acting. toward

22:00

Karen. It certainly didn't seem as though it

22:02

was a fight between this couple or that

22:04

they had some sort of quarrel. Sure anything

22:06

could have happened when they left the bar

22:08

and got into the car but I mean

22:11

everybody was saying that it seemed normal,

22:13

it seemed casual. And it wasn't just

22:15

Nicholas who testified that they acted very

22:17

affectionate toward each other. I mean multiple

22:19

friends who were there with them that

22:21

night all testified the exact same thing.

22:24

There seemed to be any tension between them to see if it was

22:26

correct. Is that right? Not that

22:29

I recall. You didn't see any evidence

22:31

of any problems between Karen and John

22:33

O'Keefe? I did not. It seemed like

22:35

they were like quite lovey-dovey at that point. Everybody

22:37

was having a great time. The

22:39

witnesses didn't just testify on their relationship

22:41

toward each other that specific night either.

22:44

They testified on their entire relationship as

22:46

a whole. These witnesses were

22:48

all friends of the couple, friends who knew

22:50

them personally, who spent a lot of time

22:52

around both of them, and who all really

22:54

would have had the inside scoop of their

22:56

relationship as well as any problems that maybe

22:58

were going on in the relationship. And

23:01

again surely not everybody always knows the inner

23:03

workings of a relationship but this

23:05

whole collection of friends and close friends at

23:07

that none of them reported

23:09

any sort of rocky doings,

23:12

any sort of rocky history between

23:14

John and Karen. And all

23:16

of the testimonies pretty much said the

23:18

same thing. Karen loved John very deeply

23:21

and from the outside looking in it

23:23

seemed like they had a very loving

23:25

and a very good relationship. Now

23:27

like I said obviously things aren't always the

23:29

same behind closed doors as they seem on

23:31

the outside but who knows? The

23:34

only testimony that really could even be perceived as

23:36

bad in all of this on Karen's part if

23:38

you had to even call it that I guess

23:41

was one specific testimony from a friend that claimed

23:43

that Karen had expressed a little bit of annoyance

23:45

in the past with John's family with his family

23:47

not really stepping up to help with his niece

23:50

and his nephew which if you've been following this

23:52

case you know he has been raising them for

23:54

eight years at the time of his death. So

23:57

That lack of help in turn meant less quality

23:59

of. Alone time between him and Karen

24:01

and this again, it's something where you can

24:04

kind of perceive that information. However, you will

24:06

not here to tell you whether or not

24:08

that specific testimony made Karen look one way

24:10

or another. I mean, you can decide for

24:13

yourself. But the surveillance video

24:15

focusing on the couple's actions toward each

24:17

other wasn't the only one that was

24:19

shown either. And all of this. The.

24:21

Defense showed a second clip from a bar

24:23

called Waterfall Grill and Bar where the group

24:26

went after they were drinking it. Cf Mccarthy's.

24:28

And. The video showed at John and

24:30

Brain Albert play fighting and arguing that

24:32

quote speaks for itself. The defense also

24:35

called to the Sand the bartender who

24:37

was working that night when she testified

24:39

in agreement with the defense that even

24:42

though everybody with ordering drinks and having

24:44

some fun. Nobody. In the

24:46

group seemed to be noticeably highly intoxicated.

24:48

Know that not to say that caring

24:51

or anyone else in the group was

24:53

completely sober because they definitely were all

24:55

drinking alcohol that night. But several of

24:57

the witnesses who testify this day and

25:00

mainly about Karen and John's relationship were

25:02

also asked if they remembered Karen drinking

25:04

anything, which they did testify that they

25:06

had, but again not in copious amounts.

25:09

One of the witnesses, Kurt Roberts testified

25:11

that Karen was either drinking some sort

25:13

of wine or a vodka mix drink.

25:15

Another witness, Michael testified that he remembered

25:18

Karen drinking some kind of next vodka

25:20

drink as well to be some the

25:22

different testimonies as well as that surveillance

25:24

footage. It is safe to say that

25:26

Care and had been drinking that night

25:28

and then more than likely shoes probably

25:30

drinking some sort of mixed drink. By

25:33

the prosecution. Also used surveillance footage from the

25:35

night at the bar to argue their stance

25:37

in our know. There was a

25:39

specific moment in those surveillance clips from the

25:41

last bar that the group without before heading

25:43

towards the Alberta house for the after party

25:45

where John can be seen finishing his drink

25:47

he's and sitting an empty glass down on

25:50

the table and he's picking up another glass

25:52

on the table that was presumed to be

25:54

carrying. This. is all before walking

25:56

out of the bar and leaving with

25:58

that glass still in hand The

26:00

reason that this footage was shown was because

26:02

it was shown to kind of corroborate their

26:04

argument that the broken evidence Glass was from

26:06

that bar since he was seen leaving with

26:08

it and that this glass was not from

26:10

inside the Albert home So

26:13

then on day eight of the trial, it was a half-day

26:15

which ended right around 12 30 p.m On

26:18

this day Brian's younger brother Chris who was

26:20

the center of a lot of conversations in

26:23

previous days of court He

26:25

took the stand to testify Chris

26:27

testified that he and his wife Julie who

26:29

testified later went to the waterfall grill with

26:31

the rest of the group that night He

26:34

claimed that Karen at no point seemed

26:36

highly intoxicated to him and he even

26:38

went into detail about how there was

26:40

never a moment Where she was swaying,

26:42

slurring her words or talking any sort

26:44

of gibberish He even said

26:46

that based on how she was acting He

26:48

completely believed that she would have been fine

26:51

to drive herself and John home that night

26:53

now remember He is Brian Albert's brother, but

26:55

he did not go over to his brother's

26:57

house when the rest of the group won't

27:00

Instead of going to the after-party

27:02

he testified that he decided to walk home

27:06

Chris's timeline of events that night were

27:08

also questioned Chris had originally testified

27:10

that he went back home from the bar around 1205

27:12

to 12 10 a.m But

27:15

surveillance video showed that he hadn't even left the

27:17

bar until a little before 12 14 a.m Crick

27:21

claimed that the walk from the bar to his

27:23

house was around a five-minute walk or so So

27:26

when he was asked by the defense if it was

27:28

impossible for him to be home around 1205

27:30

or 1210 based on that surveillance footage

27:33

he agreed Julie Chris's

27:35

wife took the stand next She

27:37

also confirmed that she was at the waterfall grill

27:40

with Chris and with the rest of the group

27:42

that night which included both Karen and John and

27:45

most of her testimony as far as who was

27:47

at the bar and how everyone was acting was

27:49

pretty much the same As Chris's it's

27:51

important to note that Julie testified that she didn't

27:53

stay very long due to getting a migraine So

27:56

she didn't stay as long as Chris had or she

27:58

hadn't walked home with him either Before

28:00

leaving though, Julie testified that she remembered the

28:03

moment that Karen and John arrived at the

28:05

bar, and she remembered specifically that

28:07

Karen had smuggled in a glass of

28:09

some kind of clear liquid which they

28:11

later laughed about together. Now

28:14

I'm guessing that the clear liquid is presumed

28:16

to be some sort of liquor, I don't

28:18

know, maybe vodka, so there's a possibility that

28:20

Karen had arrived already tipsy, or maybe drank

28:22

more than it seemed from just the drinks

28:24

that were ordered earlier directly from the bar.

28:27

Now one of the last things that we'll go

28:29

over was during the cross examination. The

28:32

prosecution had asked Julie if it was correct

28:34

that a few days after John's death, she

28:36

met with two state troopers who were part

28:38

of the investigation. Her answer

28:40

was yes. The defense

28:42

though told her that according to records, it

28:44

had actually been two weeks after John's death

28:46

that the state troopers came and talked to

28:48

her, which was on February 10, 2022. Now

28:53

one of those state troopers was a man

28:55

named Michael Proctor, who Julie testified that she

28:57

did know and was familiar with due to

28:59

him being brothers with her close friend Courtney.

29:02

But get this, Michael Proctor is

29:04

currently being investigated internally due to

29:07

possible violation of department policy. Julie

29:10

testified that she never spoke to Michael through

29:12

her friend Courtney, and that February 10th was

29:14

the very first time. When

29:17

she was asked what she and Courtney chatted

29:19

about during a 12-minute phone call on February

29:21

1st, the day that Karen was arrested,

29:24

she said she didn't recall. When

29:27

she was asked what she and Courtney

29:29

talked about during their 27-minute phone call

29:31

the following day after Karen was arraigned,

29:34

she again said she couldn't recall. Now

29:37

all of this might mean nothing at all.

29:39

I mean she genuinely could just have a

29:42

memory that wasn't that great, and it caused

29:44

her to mix up the days, it caused

29:46

her to forget phone calls, conversation, but

29:48

I thought it was important to mention, especially

29:51

since it was the primary conversation to wrap

29:53

up day five of the trial. But

29:55

again, make with it what you will and come

29:58

to your own conclusions. So

30:00

that's where we're at right now with the

30:02

Karen Reed trial. I mean, more divided than

30:04

ever. Like I said in the beginning of

30:06

this episode, a lot of people think that

30:08

her defense team is crushing it right now

30:10

and bringing in a lot of reasonable doubt.

30:13

Will it be enough when everything goes to

30:15

the jury? TBD, we

30:17

will find out. So I will keep you

30:19

posted every step of the way. Every week

30:22

we will do these trial recaps. As a

30:24

reminder, it will air first on the podcast

30:26

and then once YouTube approves it a few

30:28

days later, it'll go live on YouTube. So

30:31

if you are following this case and you

30:33

want the updates like right away, check out

30:35

the podcast. It's on all podcast platforms. It's

30:38

totally free. Just search, serialously and you will

30:40

find it. And you'll see, it gets released

30:42

every single Thursday and then the YouTube

30:44

one I think will be up probably, I don't know,

30:46

let's hope they approve it right away, but probably set

30:48

more like Saturday. So that's where

30:51

we're at now. Let me know in the comment

30:53

section, what do you believe? Have you been following

30:55

this trial? Do you think Karen is guilty? Do

30:57

you think she is innocent? Personally,

30:59

I haven't made my decision yet, but I

31:01

do have to say, there is a lot

31:03

of reasonable doubt here. I don't

31:05

know, I don't know. This is gonna be an interesting

31:07

one to watch, which is why I think people are

31:09

so glued to it. So I will keep you updated

31:11

every step of the way. As a reminder, if you

31:14

haven't snagged any of the new merch yet, we have

31:16

very limited quantities left. We have sold out of so

31:18

much already, but you can check that out at Annie

31:20

Elise Dantem. We've got the hoodies,

31:22

the sweatsuits, the Stanleys, all sorts of different

31:24

stuff, so check that out. And

31:26

until the next episode, guys, be

31:29

nice. Don't kill people,

31:31

face all the things, and I will be

31:33

back on the bike with you soon. All right? thanks,

31:35

Karen.