The attorney for Karen Read delivered his opening statement on Tuesday in the second murder trial.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00May I go? The evidence in this case will establish above everything else, three points.
00:12There was no collision with John O'Keefe. There was no collision. There was no collision.
00:23Listen, John O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle, period.
00:33The facts will show that. The evidence will show that. The data will show that.
00:39The science will show that, and the experts will tell you that.
00:45You'll learn that the Commonwealth has pinned its entire case on a brazen and a flawed assertion
00:51that is untethered, unconnected to the facts and to the evidence.
00:57And their assertion is contrary to science.
01:01Because at the end of the day, folks, there was no collision with John O'Keefe.
01:11So how did we end up here?
01:13How does Karen Reed end up sitting in that chair on trial for something, for an event,
01:18that literally never happened?
01:20Well, the evidence is going to explain it.
01:23And it can be summed up in the following text message at the very beginning of this investigation.
01:30A text message of a now fired Massachusetts State Police Officer named Michael Proctor.
01:38He was the lead investigator on this case.
01:40And he was talking about a fellow officer, a fellow cop,
01:43who owned the property where John O'Keefe's body was found.
01:49Text message with a buddy.
01:52Question, is the homeowner going to catch any shit?
01:57Answer, nope.
02:00He's a Boston cop too.
02:02That quote defines the lack of integrity of the Commonwealth's entire case,
02:12its entire investigation, and this prosecution.
02:17During the course of this trial, you'll learn much more about Mr. Proctor,
02:21why he said that, and what it really means.
02:24What you'll see and hear in this courtroom in the coming weeks is not just a story of a tragic loss.
02:32And make no mistake, John O'Keefe's death is and was a tragic, tragic, tragic loss.
02:43But the story you'll hear is about an investigation that was riddled with errors from the beginning,
02:48a rush to judgment, conflicted, and corrupted from the start.
02:53Corrupted by bias, corrupted by incompetence, and corrupted by deceit.
02:59Finally, it was corrupted by a deliberate effort to avoid and to cover up the very truth that you are seeking.
03:08You'll find when you hear the evidence that the Commonwealth's case is the literal definition of reasonable doubt.
03:16They won't be able to talk their way out of it.
03:18They won't be able to explain their way out of it.
03:19They won't be able to excuse their way out of it.
03:22And they can't meet their extreme burden of proof, which the court will tell you is beyond any and all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.
03:34Members of the jury, Karen Reed, found John O'Keefe dead on the front lawn of a Boston police officer, Brian Albert,
03:41at 6 a.m. on January 29, 2022.
03:45Picture the scene, blood-curdling screams, ambulances, emergency lights on, fire engines, ladder trucks, paramedics, patrol vehicles,
03:57patrol cruisers, police officers, first responders, firefighters, all swarming all over Brian Albert's lawn,
04:04literally feet under his bedroom window.
04:10Yet Brian Albert, a sworn peace officer, a first responder himself, never came outside.
04:19Never went outside to see what the chaos was about.
04:21Never went outside to see if he could assist a man in need.
04:24Never walked outside his house to see if he could help a fallen fellow officer on his own front lawn.
04:33More shockingly, you'll learn that lead investigator for the Massachusetts police, Michael Proctor,
04:39never set foot inside Brian Albert's house that day.
04:44Never engaged in any investigation inside that house that day.
04:49Even though a party with much alcohol had just occurred in that house,
04:53and even though a Boston police officer was found dead or dying just mere feet from the front door on that lawn.
05:01He never secured the crime scene, never separated and secured witnesses.
05:05He never properly collected evidence.
05:08He never secured the evidence.
05:09He never searched for signs of a struggle inside or outside the home.
05:12He never properly canvassed the neighborhood.
05:17Michael Proctor never did any of these things,
05:20even though a fellow officer, even though fellow officers of his, of Michael Proctor's,
05:25actually mentioned, in their words, not mine,
05:29that it looked like John O'Keefe may have been, quote, in a fight.
05:36You'll have questions about that conduct.
05:39During the course of this trial, you'll find that the Commonwealth will not have answers.
05:44You'll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy,
05:50one that has spread through the investigation.
05:52It's spread through the prosecution from the very start, from the jump.
05:57A cancer that cannot be cut out.
06:00A cancer that cannot be cured.
06:04And that cancer has a name.
06:06His name is Michael Proctor.
06:09Now, you didn't hear his name in the prosecution's opening statement.
06:15Not once.
06:17I suspect that was probably by design.
06:20But make no mistake about it.
06:22The evidence will show in this case that Michael Proctor is the very definition of the Commonwealth's case.
06:31And he's also there Achilles' heel.
06:34He was the lead investigator on the case.
06:36The case officer.
06:37The architect of the entire prosecution.
06:40You'll learn there's not a single part of this case, folks, not a single part, that he didn't touch, that he didn't direct, that he didn't orchestrate personally.
06:49Every single bit of it has his fingerprints on it.
06:53You'll learn that Michael Proctor was a longtime family friend of the Alberts.
07:00And he's been disgraced by his own agency.
07:05Not by us.
07:06By the Massachusetts State Police.
07:08The evidence will show that Massachusetts State Police found him guilty.
07:18He found Michael Proctor guilty of bringing dishonor to the department for his conduct.
07:23Not in some other case.
07:24Not in some tangential case.
07:26In this case.
07:28The investigation of Karen Reed.
07:34Conduct that included bias in favor of his friends, the all-powerful Albert family.
07:40And bias against my client, Ms. Reed, the outsider.
07:46Do you have any idea how hard it is for a state trooper to get fired?
07:50Well, the evidence is going to show that Michael Proctor earned it.
07:55Every bit of it.
07:58You'll hear that within hours of a Boston police officer being found dead on Brian Albert's lawn,
08:03Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, who had investigated exactly nothing up to this point, right at the beginning,
08:09made an early pronouncement that Brian Albert himself was not going to, quote, catch any shit, end quote.
08:16And that was for one reason and one reason only.
08:21He's a Boston cop.
08:26The evidence will show that Michael Proctor made this statement in a text conversation with his high school buddies.
08:33A text he never thought would see the light of day.
08:35Certainly never thought we would get a hold of.
08:37And when he thought no one was looking, he actually said the quiet part out loud.
08:42He's a cop too.
08:45We'll give him a pass.
08:46You'll learn that in Michael Proctor's world, rank has its privileges.
08:54The evidence will show that's privileges that you don't get and I don't get.
08:59But apparently a Boston police officer, Brian Albert, and his friends, they do get.
09:07You'll learn that in Michael Proctor's world, he didn't care about finding the truth.
09:14In his world, his priority was to protect the brotherhood, to protect that blue wall, to protect his friends who were at the Alberts house that night.
09:27I want to take a step back, if I could, and spend the next few minutes talking a little bit more detail about what the actual facts in this case will show, not based on speculation, not based on surmise, not based on guesswork or conjecture,
09:43but the actual true facts that you will learn through the course of this trial.
09:47On January 28, 2022, it was a Friday night.
09:52John and Karen had made plans to meet up with friends for drinks.
09:55It was a happy and normal night for them.
09:59They were affectionate.
10:00They were loving.
10:01They were in good spirits.
10:02Nothing out of the ordinary.
10:04They started at a local watering hole called C.F. McCarthy's.
10:06You've heard that name before and you'll hear it again.
10:08And eventually they made their way over to the Waterfall Bar and Grill, another bar where they ended up.
10:13When they got to the Waterfall Bar and Grill, the Albert family was already there, already heavily drinking.
10:20You'll learn that this was no ordinary family, the Alberts.
10:23The Albert family was a well-known Canton family.
10:26Some might even describe them as a very powerful Canton family.
10:30Brian Albert was there at the Waterfall.
10:33You'll hear that he's a longtime Boston police officer.
10:36His wife, Nicole Albert, was there with him.
10:38His brother, Chris Albert, a powerful Canton politician.
10:43He sits on the select board.
10:45The select board actually governs the police department, the Canton PD.
10:49He was there.
10:50His wife, Julie Albert, was there.
10:52Their daughter, Caitlin Albert, was there.
10:55His sister-in-law, Jennifer McCabe, was there.
10:58Her husband, Matt McCabe, was also there.
11:01They were all there drinking before John and before Karen ever arrived.
11:06You'll learn that a man by the name of Brian Higgins, also a law enforcement officer and longtime friend, longtime pal of Brian Albert, he was also there.
11:16And the two of them, the two Bryans, had been drinking most of the night together.
11:19You'll see video footage from the Waterfall, which will show you that Karen and John were happy.
11:28They were affectionate.
11:29They were caring.
11:29They were loving.
11:30Just business as usual.
11:32Out on a date on a Friday night.
11:34But that exact same video footage, which lead investigator Michael Proctor plainly chose to ignore that video footage, it paints a very different picture of Brian Higgins.
11:48You'll learn that Higgins had romantic designs for Karen.
11:55That becomes important.
11:57Brian Higgins had engaged Karen in flirtatious texts, but days earlier she had put a stop to it.
12:03She had ghosted him in common parlance.
12:06In other words, just ignored him.
12:07The evidence will show that the first time he saw her and was in her presence after being rejected by her was when she walked into the Waterfall Bar and Grill, along with her boyfriend, John O'Keefe.
12:23At 11.58 p.m., just minutes before John ultimately arrived at the Albert residence, you'll see a video at the Waterfall of an unsettling interaction, troubling interaction between Brian Higgins and John O'Keefe.
12:41And unlike the lead investigator Michael Proctor in this case, you won't ignore that evidence.
12:47As the bar was closing around 12 midnight, the Alberts invited everybody back to their house for a get-together to just keep the night going.
12:52And you'll learn that Karen and John ultimately pulled up to the house.
12:58They got out of the SUV to make sure they had the right address.
13:01You see, neither John nor Karen had ever been to 34 Fairview.
13:04They weren't even sure they were with the right address.
13:08And the evidence will establish that John got out of the SUV and went into the house.
13:16Let me say that again.
13:17Again, the facts unequivocally, the data, the science, the witnesses, will all unequivocally establish that John O'Keefe went into the Albert home that night.
13:31Eyewitnesses and forensic data will establish that fact.
13:36When he didn't come back out, you'll learn that Karen grew increasingly frustrated.
13:43She got upset.
13:44She was left alone in a car, in the cold, in the middle of the night, with the car idling.
13:49John had gone into the house.
13:50She expected him to come right back out.
13:52And when he didn't, seconds turned into minutes.
13:56And minutes started to clock away.
13:57Anyway, she left John a voicemail, then another voicemail, voicemail after voicemail after voicemail, text messages.
14:05But he was unresponsive.
14:08He didn't pick up a single call.
14:11He didn't respond to a single text.
14:14The longer he didn't respond, the more upset she got.
14:19The Commonwealth will intimate, as they already have in their opening statement,
14:22that these voicemails are evidence that the two were fighting.
14:25The actual evidence in this case, however, will show the exact opposite.
14:31You'll hear that Karen was very agitated.
14:35You'll hear some voicemails where she's swearing.
14:37You'll hear voicemails where she calls them names.
14:40There's name calling.
14:41But you'll also hear the context of those voicemails.
14:46And every single one of them, every single one of those voicemails was left for John
14:51after he failed to come back out of the house,
14:55after he failed to respond to her voicemails and to her texts.
15:01Karen believed John had just left her sitting there,
15:03grabbed a beer, was partying with his friends.
15:06The evidence will actually show that John and Karen never had a crossword,
15:13not a single crossword, that entire evening before he left that SUV and went inside the house.
15:21And you will learn what Karen had absolutely no way of knowing at the time.
15:25It wasn't that he couldn't, I'm sorry, it wasn't that he wouldn't respond to her.
15:29It's that he couldn't respond to her.
15:33And the evidence will show you why.
15:36Let's talk about that.
15:38We'll introduce you to a doctor named Elizabeth Lopasada,
15:41a renowned forensic pathologist, a medical examiner, and a professor at Brown University.
15:47She will tell you that the injury to the back of John's head, first of all,
15:52was immediately incapacitating.
15:54And that has meaning.
15:55At the moment he suffered that fatal head injury,
15:57he couldn't walk, talk, grab his phone, cry for help, nothing.
16:02He was completely incapacitated, completely unconscious.
16:05From the moment he suffered that injury,
16:08he was completely still and incapable of interacting with anyone or anything.
16:16But the doctor will tell you something more and just as important.
16:21She'll tell you that John O'Keefe did not suffer from hypothermia,
16:26as the Commonwealth will undoubtedly allege.
16:30His body showed no signs of it, no frostbite,
16:33no cold-induced injuries to his organs,
16:37no damage based on cold or frost.
16:41Ladies and gentlemen, the scientific evidence and the medical evidence will establish
16:46that John O'Keefe had to be injured somewhere else,
16:54somewhere warmer,
16:56and his body had to have been moved out into the cold.
17:00And that's where, ultimately, at 6 a.m.,
17:07Karen found him the next morning.
17:10You will learn that John did not have a single injury
17:16consistent with being hit by a car.
17:19Let me say that again.
17:20The evidence will establish that John did not suffer a single injury on his body
17:27consistent with having been hit by a car, not one.
17:31You'll learn that John's torso, his ribs, his chest, his arms, his hips, his legs,
17:35his knees, his ankles, his feet, all of them,
17:38no broken bones, no fractures, no contusions,
17:42no torn ligaments, no internal injuries,
17:44not even a bruise.
17:47Nothing consistent with a car accident,
17:52despite the Commonwealth's contention that he was slammed into
17:56by a 6,000-pound SUV.
18:01Not a bruise.
18:05Dr. La Posada will tell you with medical certainty
18:08that, in fact, John was not struck by a vehicle.
18:12Medically and scientifically, he could not have been struck by a vehicle.
18:16Therefore, as I said, there was no collision.
18:23She will tell you that the patterned abrasions on John's right arm,
18:27the patterned abrasions you see over my left shoulder,
18:31they're not the result of being struck by a car or a taillight.
18:37You'll take one look at these injuries,
18:38and you'll agree with Dr. La Posada,
18:40the evidence will show that these injuries are from an animal,
18:43like a large dog.
18:46Like the large dog that was inside the Albert house that night.
18:50You'll learn that Brian Albert has actually admitted
18:53that his large dog, the family dog,
18:55is, quote,
18:57not good with strangers.
18:59And, of course, John,
19:00never having been to the house before,
19:02was a stranger that night.
19:04You'll also learn that, oddly, very oddly,
19:09after having their family pet for seven years,
19:16a short time after this incident,
19:18the Alberts got rid of that dog.
19:20Dr. La Posada will also tell you that the injury to John's head
19:31was not the result of falling backward onto a flat, long, cold, or otherwise.
19:37Rather, Dr. La Posada will tell you with medical certainty
19:41that the injury pattern to his scalp was produced by an impact
19:44from a raised or ledged surface,
19:47a surface that does not exist
19:49on Brian Albert's front lawn where John was found.
19:53The medical evidence will establish no hypothermia,
19:56no injuries from a car strike,
19:59no collision with a motor vehicle.
20:04And forensic analysis of John's cell phone,
20:06Mr. Brennan mentioned that in his opening statement,
20:10the Commonwealth's own expert
20:12will ultimately support the exact facts
20:15that I just told you,
20:16including the temperature data.
20:21John O'Keefe was injured someplace warmer
20:23and he was moved.
20:26That alone is reasonable doubt.
20:30But there's much more.
20:32You'll also learn that there were many people
20:33at that after-hours gathering at Brian Albert's house
20:35who would have left by the front door
20:37just feet
20:39from where John O'Keefe's body
20:42would have ultimately been
20:43had he actually been there
20:45right after 12.30 a.m.,
20:48which is what the Commonwealth's claim is.
20:50There were nearly a dozen people
20:52who walked out that front door
20:54directly adjacent to this
20:56the precise spot
20:58where John O'Keefe
20:59would have been lying.
21:00Not a single person,
21:02not one,
21:03not a single person
21:04saw a six-foot-two,
21:05216-pound man
21:07laying sprawled in the front lawn
21:09in dark clothing
21:10on a light white dusting of snow.
21:13Not one.
21:14Then the evidence will also show
21:15that every one of those same people
21:17drove by that same spot,
21:18not walked by it,
21:20drove by it
21:20to leave the house
21:22and still not one of them
21:23saw John laying in the yard
21:25when they left
21:26between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. in the morning.
21:29But you know who else you'll find
21:31never saw a body on that lawn?
21:34The snowplow driver.
21:36A completely independent witness
21:38charged with plowing the streets
21:40in Canton that night.
21:41You'll hear that Michael Proctor,
21:43oh, he's not done yet,
21:45Mr. Proctor.
21:46You'll hear that Michael Proctor
21:47wrote a report
21:48where he claimed that Fairview
21:49had not been plowed that night.
21:52You'll learn that
21:52that was completely false.
21:54That was a lie.
21:56Michael Proctor did not want
21:57any more witnesses.
21:58He didn't want the truth.
21:59And he falsely claimed
22:01that the road was never plowed.
22:02You'll learn that he wouldn't look
22:03for the plow driver.
22:04But we did.
22:06And we found
22:07and we'll introduce you to
22:08Brian Loughran.
22:11He plowed Fairview that night
22:12and what he's going to tell you
22:13is that there was
22:14no body on that lawn
22:16at 2.30 in the morning.
22:19You'll learn that Brian Loughran
22:20passed by 34 Fairview
22:21traveling right next to
22:23Brian Albert's front yard
22:24and at 2.30 a.m.
22:26John O'Keefe was not there.
22:28But you'll see that the plow driver
22:30also provides some other
22:31troubling information
22:33troubling testimony
22:34for the commonwealth.
22:35You'll learn
22:36that after making that pass
22:38at 2.30 a.m.
22:39he showed up with his plow
22:40an hour later.
22:42He stopped at the entrance
22:44of Fairview.
22:44He was looking up Fairview
22:46to decide whether or not
22:47to plow it.
22:48But he saw an obstruction.
22:49At 3.30 a.m.
22:50he looked down the street
22:51and in the very spot
22:53the very spot precisely
22:55where Karen would later
22:56find John's body
22:58laying at 6 a.m.
23:00there was a car parked
23:01in front of it.
23:02A Ford Edge.
23:04You're going to ask yourself
23:05who's moving a car
23:06at 3.30 in the morning
23:08into a blizzard
23:09on the side of the road?
23:12You'll learn that Michael Proctor,
23:13the lead investigator,
23:14intentionally ignored
23:16this fact as well.
23:17He did no investigation
23:18to find out who owned
23:19a Ford Edge.
23:20But again,
23:21we did.
23:23And the evidence
23:23will establish
23:24that Ford Edge
23:25happens to be a favorite model
23:28of the Albert family.
23:29More than one Albert
23:31owned a Ford Edge
23:31at the time.
23:33You'll learn that those facts
23:35will add to the mounting
23:36and the overwhelming evidence
23:37that there was no collision
23:40and John O'Keefe's body
23:41was moved onto that lawn.
23:45You'll find that this is yet
23:46additional reasonable doubt
23:48in the case.
23:50You'll be introduced
23:51to science and physics,
23:52even from the Commonwealth's
23:54own experts.
23:55That science will establish
23:57that Karen Reed's SUV
23:58was not damaged
24:00by hitting a pedestrian
24:01and conversely,
24:03John O'Keefe's injuries
24:04did not come
24:05from being struck
24:07by a vehicle.
24:10The Commonwealth
24:11mentioned triggering events.
24:12But what you'll actually learn
24:13from the experts,
24:15some of them
24:15the Commonwealth's own experts,
24:17is that a triggering event
24:18is not evidence
24:19of an accident.
24:21It does not evidence
24:22a collision.
24:23That's why we're here.
24:25A collision.
24:27And there's no evidence
24:29of one.
24:29Zero.
24:32You'll also find
24:33that those exact sort
24:34of triggering events
24:35that the Commonwealth
24:36will rely on,
24:37relatively commonplace,
24:39on Karen's SUV,
24:40and none of them
24:41are associated
24:42with a claim
24:43of a collision.
24:45Folks,
24:46the science
24:46will not lie
24:47and the physics
24:48cannot lie.
24:50And that science
24:51will tell you
24:51with certainty
24:52there was no collision
24:54with John O'Keefe.
24:55You'll add that
24:57to that rising mountain
24:59of reasonable doubt.
25:02I want to take you
25:02back to the night
25:03in question,
25:04January 29th,
25:05for just a few minutes.
25:07Remember,
25:07Karen had gone home
25:08after dropping off
25:10John and John
25:11walking to the house.
25:13While Karen was asleep
25:14at home
25:15with John's 13-year-old niece,
25:17what were the people
25:18who had been
25:18at Brian Albert's house
25:19that night,
25:20what were they doing?
25:20While she slept,
25:23what you'll find
25:24and what the evidence
25:24will show
25:25is that they were
25:26extremely busy.
25:28You'll learn
25:29that after a long night
25:30of heavy drinking,
25:31Brian Higgins
25:32left the Albert residence,
25:34but he didn't drive home.
25:35Rather,
25:35he drove over
25:36to the Canton Police Department
25:37where he kept an office
25:38at about 1.25 a.m.
25:40Not a Canton police officer,
25:42but he kept an office there.
25:44Why go back to his office
25:46at 1.25 a.m.?
25:47Why go back
25:48to the Canton Police Department
25:49at 1.25 in the morning
25:51on the night of a blizzard?
25:53You'll learn
25:54that while there,
25:55Higgins made a call
25:55at 1.30 a.m.
25:58Higgins will later deny
25:59that he made that call.
26:01You'll find that curious.
26:02And his explanation
26:03for that late night visit
26:04to Canton PD,
26:06you'll find that it changes
26:06nearly every time
26:07he's asked about it.
26:09You'll learn
26:10that after everyone
26:10left Brian Albert's house,
26:12Brian Albert actually claimed
26:13he had no contact
26:14with anybody else
26:15except his wife.
26:16No contact.
26:17Until he woke up
26:20the next morning.
26:21So he says.
26:23Then you'll learn
26:24that that too
26:24is a complete lie.
26:27His phone records
26:27established that he placed
26:28a call to none other
26:30than Brian Higgins
26:31at 2.22 a.m.
26:35shortly after Higgins
26:36completed that late night
26:37visit over to Canton PD.
26:41You'll wonder,
26:42what did they possibly need
26:45to talk about
26:45at 2.22 a.m.
26:48that night?
26:50The evidence will establish
26:51that Brian Albert
26:52called Brian Higgins first.
26:54Brian Albert then
26:55disconnected that call
26:56when Higgins didn't answer it.
26:58Seconds later,
26:58Brian Higgins returned the call.
27:00Brian Albert then
27:01did answer that call.
27:02They spoke for 22 full seconds,
27:05had a conversation,
27:06then they both hung up
27:07their respective phones.
27:09You'll learn that
27:10when they were asked
27:10about these calls
27:11and conversations,
27:13both Brian Albert
27:14and Brian Higgins
27:15lied about it.
27:16Both of them.
27:17They said they never
27:18had a call with each other.
27:20But then ultimately,
27:21when they were confronted
27:22with their own cell phone records
27:23and they could no longer
27:25deny the calls,
27:26they were asked independently,
27:28explain yourself.
27:29And they both came up
27:30with the exact same explanation.
27:33A butt dial.
27:33The evidence will make you question
27:38why did Albert and Higgins
27:40speak at 2.22 a.m.
27:43and why did they both
27:44try to cover up
27:44that phone call?
27:46You'll also learn
27:47after this incident
27:48and within days
27:49of one another,
27:49both Brian Higgins
27:50and Brian Albert,
27:51both police officers,
27:53both trained investigators,
27:55got rid of their phones.
27:59Both of them.
28:00And what else you'll learn
28:05Brian Albert got rid of?
28:10Shortly after this incident,
28:11Brian Albert got rid of his house,
28:13the whole thing.
28:14Just sold it.
28:16His childhood home,
28:17a home that had been
28:18in the Albert family
28:18for generations,
28:20he literally sold it
28:21mere months
28:22after this incident.
28:24Dog rehomed,
28:26phones destroyed,
28:27house sold.
28:30You'll learn that
28:30all these things
28:31happened shortly
28:31after the incident
28:32where John O'Keefe
28:33was found unresponsive
28:35and dying
28:35in Brian Albert's front lawn.
28:38And you'll also learn
28:39that Michael Proctor
28:40looked the other way.
28:43He did not investigate
28:45any of what I'm telling you.
28:47He pre-selected Karen Reed
28:49from the start.
28:52And he ignored
28:53everything
28:54and everyone else.
28:56Let's get back
28:58to what was happening
28:59with the others
29:01while Karen slept.
29:03What you'll learn
29:04during this trial
29:04is that Brian Albert's
29:05sister-in-law,
29:06you've heard her name before,
29:07Jennifer McCabe.
29:08She was at the waterfall
29:09that night
29:09and she was over
29:10at the Albert's house
29:10that evening as well.
29:12She left the after hours
29:14gathering about
29:142 a.m.,
29:17a little before 2 a.m.,
29:18got home around 2 a.m.
29:20And you'll learn
29:20that according to
29:21the Commonwealth's own evidence
29:22from a forensic software program
29:25called Physical Analyzer
29:26made by Celebrite.
29:28It's considered
29:29the gold standard
29:30for forensic tools.
29:31You'll learn
29:32that a Google search
29:33was discovered
29:34on Jennifer McCabe's phone.
29:37A Google search
29:38that Michael Proctor
29:39and his investigators
29:40never revealed to us
29:42but we found anyway.
29:45A Google search
29:46that was time-stamped
29:47according to their own data
29:48at 2.27 a.m.
29:51five minutes
29:53after that 2.22 a.m. call
29:56that Higgins and Albert
29:57denied having.
29:59And that Google search
30:00on Jennifer McCabe's phone
30:01read
30:02Haas long to die in cold.
30:08Haas long to die in cold.
30:11Now she misspelled
30:12the first word.
30:13Haas is supposed to be how
30:14but the meaning's the same.
30:16How long does it take
30:17to die in the cold?
30:20Timestamped.
30:212.27.
30:25And then that search
30:26was also noted
30:27by the same Celebite program
30:29as having been deleted.
30:33The evidence will force you
30:34to ask
30:35why is there a search
30:37on her phone?
30:38Why is it logged
30:39at 2.27 a.m.?
30:40When the Commonwealth
30:42claims that she first learned
30:44of John's death
30:45and where his body was
30:47hours later
30:48at 6 a.m.?
30:50So what you'll learn
30:53is that while
30:53Karen slept
30:54here's what was actually
30:56happening
30:56by some other
30:57very busy bees.
30:591.25 a.m.
31:01Brian Higgins
31:01makes an unexpected
31:02visit to Canton PD.
31:031.30 a.m.
31:05He makes a phone call
31:06that he later denies
31:07ever making.
31:08At 2.22 a.m.
31:10Brian Higgins
31:11and Brian Albert
31:11talk.
31:12They both deny
31:13and lie
31:14about having made
31:14that phone call.
31:162.27 a.m.
31:17five minutes later
31:18a Google search
31:19appears on Jennifer McCabe's phone
31:21Haas Long
31:22to die in cold
31:23hours before
31:24John's body
31:24was ever discovered.
31:26A Google search
31:27she denies making
31:28and that she later
31:29or at least
31:30it was later
31:30logged as deleted.
31:33Meanwhile
31:33at 2.30 a.m.
31:34the plow driver
31:35confirms that
31:36O'Keeffe's body
31:36was not on the lawn
31:38of Brian Albert's house
31:39not at 2.30
31:40in the morning
31:41and at 3.30
31:42in the morning
31:43that area
31:44was obstructed
31:45by a Ford Edge
31:46a Ford Edge
31:47like the one
31:48the Albert family
31:49like to own.
31:52The evidence
31:53will show
31:54in the meantime
31:54Karen dozed
31:56in and out
31:56of a fitful sleep
31:57for the rest of the night
31:58only to awaken
31:59just before 5 a.m.
32:00and that's when
32:01she realized
32:02in a panic
32:02John had never
32:03come home
32:04and you'll see
32:06it wasn't like John
32:07to not come home.
32:09That morning
32:10you'll see here
32:10you'll see and hear
32:11evidence that
32:12Karen's emotions
32:12had morphed
32:14it'd gone from
32:14frustration
32:15and anger
32:15which you'll hear
32:16in the voicemails
32:17to abject
32:18fear
32:18fear that something
32:19bad had happened
32:20the evidence
32:21will establish
32:21by this time
32:22Karen was
32:23panic stricken
32:25she had a feeling
32:26something was
32:27very very wrong
32:29she was unable
32:31to get a hold
32:31of John
32:32Karen went
32:32to go look
32:32for him
32:33she got in a Lexus
32:35and she backed up
32:36to leave her garage
32:37at One Meadows
32:38you'll hear a lot
32:38about that
32:39address
32:40One Meadows
32:41that was John's house
32:42where Karen was staying
32:43she backed out
32:44of the garage
32:45and during
32:45the course of the trial
32:46you'll hear that
32:47she actually
32:50struck another car
32:51with that right
32:53rear taillight
32:54during the course
32:56of this trial
32:56the commonwealth
32:57is going to
32:57desperately claim
32:58that Karen Reed's
32:59taillight was
32:59actually damaged
33:00by hitting
33:01John O'Keefe
33:01they'll have no
33:04evidence of it
33:04mind you
33:05none
33:05but they'll make
33:07the claim
33:07we'll show you
33:12a video
33:13of exactly
33:15how that
33:16taillight
33:16was originally
33:17damaged
33:17or exactly
33:19what happened
33:19at 5.07
33:20in the morning
33:21the facts
33:22will show
33:22that it was
33:23damaged
33:23in John's
33:24own driveway
33:24at 5.07
33:25when Karen
33:26backed up
33:26and made
33:27contact
33:28with another
33:28car
33:29in the driveway
33:30this is
33:31five hours
33:31after she
33:33dropped
33:33John off
33:34and he went
33:35into the
33:35Albert residence
33:36as a result
33:37the taillight
33:38was minimally
33:39cracked
33:39but it wasn't
33:40completely
33:40shattered
33:41or damaged
33:41or broken
33:42and that's
33:43the condition
33:43of the SUV
33:44when Michael
33:45Proctor
33:45got a hold
33:46of it
33:46that becomes
33:48important
33:49you'll hear
33:50from an
33:50independent
33:50police officer
33:51an eyewitness
33:52to the damage
33:53on that SUV
33:54someone not
33:55connected to
33:56Michael Proctor
33:57or under
33:57his control
33:58and he'll
33:59tell you
34:00that he saw
34:01the taillight
34:01damaged
34:02before it was
34:03in
34:03Michael Proctor's
34:04possession
34:04but it was
34:05not
34:05completely
34:06shattered
34:07and you
34:09won't have
34:09to speculate
34:10how that
34:10taillight
34:11got cracked
34:11originally
34:12you'll see
34:13it for
34:13yourself
34:13it's on
34:15video
34:16you'll learn
34:18that part
34:18of the reason
34:18that Karen's
34:19Lexus
34:19hit that
34:20car at
34:20one
34:20Meadows
34:20is because
34:21she backed
34:21out looking
34:22for him
34:22at a time
34:23when she
34:24was absolutely
34:25panicked
34:25panic stricken
34:27and grief
34:27stricken
34:27where was
34:29John
34:29why hadn't
34:30he come
34:30home
34:30what had
34:31happened
34:32to him
34:32is he
34:32hurt
34:33is he
34:33passed
34:33out
34:33somewhere
34:34her mind
34:35was reeling
34:35the evidence
34:36will establish
34:37she wasn't
34:38giving anything
34:39away
34:40everything
34:41was on the
34:41table
34:42what could
34:42have happened
34:43to John
34:43you'll learn
34:45when she woke
34:45up
34:46and he still
34:46wasn't home
34:47she was just
34:47racking her brain
34:48for what could
34:49have happened
34:50to him
34:50and she was
34:50worried about
34:51possibly the
34:52worst
34:52he'd gotten
34:53out of the
34:53car
34:54he'd walked
34:54to the
34:55house
34:55she was
34:56confused
34:56and later
34:57when she
34:58found him
34:58at 6 a.m.
34:59on the lawn
34:59when she last
35:00saw him
35:00going toward
35:01the house
35:01her mind
35:02started
35:02reeling
35:02oh my
35:03god
35:03did a plow
35:04hit him
35:04did I
35:05hit him
35:05could I
35:06have hit
35:06him
35:06what could
35:07have happened
35:08to him
35:08and that
35:09video clip
35:09that you
35:10saw
35:10out of context
35:13when she
35:14said the
35:14words
35:14he did not
35:16look like he
35:16was mortally
35:17wounded
35:17she's not
35:18talking about
35:18at midnight
35:19she's talking
35:21about at 6 a.m.
35:22when she
35:22found him
35:23that's what
35:25she was talking
35:25about
35:26your job
35:29will be
35:29to make
35:30sure
35:30that the
35:31evidence
35:32isn't
35:32presented
35:33to you
35:33too cute
35:34by half
35:35she was
35:39saying all
35:40those things
35:40did a plow
35:41hit him
35:41could I
35:42have hit
35:42him
35:42did I
35:42hit him
35:43she was
35:44saying that
35:44to herself
35:45and to other
35:45people
35:45and the
35:45commonwealth
35:46very obviously
35:47will try to
35:47seize on that
35:48panic
35:48and twist
35:49this
35:49into some
35:50admission
35:50but here's
35:51the actual
35:52truth
35:52that's not
35:53a confession
35:54could I
35:55have hit
35:55him
35:55did I
35:55hit him
35:56could a
35:56plow
35:56have hit
35:57him
35:57that's a
35:58person
35:58trying to
35:59make sense
35:59of an
35:59unexplainable
36:00circumstance
36:01a natural
36:01concern
36:02of a
36:02bereaved
36:03significant
36:04other
36:04a woman
36:05desperately
36:05trying to
36:06piece together
36:07what could
36:07have happened
36:08on this
36:08tragic night
36:09John didn't
36:10come home
36:11and the evidence
36:12will show that
36:13Karen Reed
36:13never said
36:15I hit him
36:16never
36:17not in the
36:18background of the
36:19911 recording
36:20not on any
36:21dash cam video
36:22not on any
36:22audio
36:23not on any
36:24police
36:24body cam
36:25not to a
36:25first responder
36:26it's never
36:27mentioned in a
36:28single report
36:29it's never
36:29reported in a
36:31single report
36:31from January
36:3229th
36:33not by one
36:34person
36:34because it
36:35never happened
36:36the evidence
36:38will show that
36:38members
36:39I'm sorry
36:39the evidence
36:40will show that
36:40there were at
36:41least 13
36:42members of law
36:43enforcement or
36:43first responders
36:45and two civilian
36:46witnesses that
36:47were intently
36:48focused on what
36:49was happening
36:49at that scene
36:50they were all
36:51over the lawn
36:51they were all
36:52over Karen
36:53officer
36:55seraph
36:55mulaney
36:56good
36:56lank
36:57emt
36:58nuttle
36:58flammadi
36:59kelly
36:59walsh
37:00woodbury
37:00whitley
37:00becker
37:01robery
37:01mcloughlin
37:02carrie roberts
37:04jennifer
37:05mccabe
37:05they were all
37:06there
37:06watching and
37:07listening
37:08on january
37:0929th
37:09when john
37:10o'keefe
37:10was found
37:11not one
37:12first responder
37:14reported having
37:15heard
37:15karen reed
37:16say the words
37:17I hit him
37:18not one
37:19not one
37:22civilian
37:22reported
37:23having heard
37:24karen reed
37:25say I hit
37:26him
37:26the facts
37:30will show
37:31that the
37:31first time
37:31this
37:32improved
37:33statement
37:33was ever
37:34claimed to
37:35have been
37:35made was
37:35some 24
37:36hours later
37:37by a
37:37single
37:38emt
37:39in an
37:39interview
37:40now listen
37:41to this
37:41in an
37:43interview
37:43coordinated
37:44by a
37:45canton police
37:46detective
37:46named
37:47kevin
37:48albert
37:50brian
37:54albert's
37:55brother
37:55and remember
37:57chris
37:58albert
37:58the other
37:59brother
37:59is a
38:00board
38:01selectman
38:01to whom
38:02the canton
38:03police
38:03department
38:03reports
38:04and what's
38:06more you'll
38:07learn that
38:07katie
38:07mcloughlin
38:08that's the
38:09emt
38:09that's the
38:10single
38:10emt
38:11the first
38:12person to
38:12have claimed
38:13to have
38:13heard this
38:13unrecorded
38:14and unreported
38:15statement
38:16is years
38:17long
38:17close
38:18personal
38:19friends
38:19with a
38:20young
38:20woman
38:20named
38:21caitlin
38:21albert
38:25you heard
38:27that right
38:27it's brian
38:30albert's
38:30daughter
38:30during the
38:32course of
38:32this trial
38:33you'll become
38:33familiar with
38:35and you'll
38:35realize
38:35that the
38:36alberts are
38:37indeed
38:37a powerful
38:38and indeed
38:39an influential
38:40family
38:41and that
38:42will mean
38:42something
38:43you'll learn
38:44that there
38:44are other
38:45major problems
38:45with the
38:45prosecution's
38:46case
38:46the evidence
38:47will establish
38:48that michael
38:48proctor
38:49himself
38:50the lead
38:50investigator
38:51and architect
38:52of this
38:52entire
38:53case
38:53has a
38:54long-standing
38:55and personal
38:55relationship
38:56with the
38:57albert family
38:57yes that
38:58same
38:58albert family
38:59his sister
39:01was close
39:01friends with
39:02julie albert
39:02he sat
39:03personally sat
39:04at head
39:05tables
39:05at weddings
39:06or at a
39:07head table
39:07at weddings
39:08with the
39:09albert family
39:09he entrusted
39:10the alberts
39:10with babysitting
39:12his own
39:13children
39:14you heard
39:15you heard
39:15that correctly
39:16and yet
39:16he was
39:17the lead
39:17detective
39:18assigned
39:19to investigate
39:20the circumstances
39:21of a boston
39:22police officer
39:23laying dead
39:24on the
39:25alberts
39:25front lawn
39:26that's not
39:28just bias
39:29you'll learn
39:30that's not
39:31just coincidence
39:31that folks
39:33is corruption
39:34and you'll
39:36see how far
39:36it went
39:37michael proctor
39:38was alone
39:39with all
39:40the critical
39:40evidence
39:41in this case
39:41alone
39:41with karen
39:42reid's phone
39:42alone
39:43with john's
39:44phone
39:44alone
39:44with video
39:45footage
39:45alone
39:45with the
39:46taillight
39:46material
39:46alone
39:47when he
39:47claimed
39:48to recover
39:48evidence
39:48from 34
39:49fairview
39:50he wrote
39:50the search
39:51warrants
39:51he transported
39:52the evidence
39:52he secured
39:53it
39:53he submitted
39:54it
39:54he did
39:55it all
39:55that's
39:56michael proctor
39:57and he did
39:58it without
39:58any reasonable
39:59oversight
40:00you'll see
40:02during the trial
40:03that he
40:03intentionally lied
40:04and fabricated
40:06evidence
40:06during the course
40:06of this
40:07investigation
40:07he lied
40:08in reports
40:08warrants
40:09he lied
40:09under oath
40:10he lied
40:11about the time
40:12that he actually
40:13secured
40:14karen reid's
40:14vehicle
40:15why
40:16why would he
40:16lie about that
40:17the evidence
40:20will give you
40:20the answer
40:21he lied
40:22because he did
40:23not want it
40:23revealed
40:23that he had
40:24access to that
40:25vehicle
40:25and he had
40:26access to that
40:26taillight
40:27before any
40:29taillight fragments
40:30were found
40:31at 34
40:32fairview
40:32appreciate
40:35that
40:35he had
40:37access
40:38to the
40:38vehicle
40:39before
40:40a single
40:41piece
40:42of
40:42taillight
40:42material
40:43was
40:43ever
40:44found
40:45at the
40:45scene
40:46you'll find
40:47that there
40:47were two
40:47searches
40:48the first
40:49and second
40:49search
40:50found
40:51zero
40:52nothing
40:53nothing around
40:54John's body
40:55nothing in the
40:57street
40:57not one piece
40:59of taillight
40:59fragment
41:00but once
41:01michael proctor
41:01had that
41:02SUV
41:02and had
41:03the taillight
41:03in his
41:04custody
41:04and control
41:05suddenly
41:06items
41:06started
41:06magically
41:07showing up
41:07and not
41:08just a few
41:08items
41:0946 pieces
41:10of bright
41:11red
41:12taillight
41:12laying in
41:13the snow
41:13supposedly
41:15found in
41:16the exact
41:16same spot
41:17that was
41:18searched
41:18not once
41:19but twice
41:20by independent
41:22officers
41:23came up
41:23with zero
41:24to be clear
41:26you'll learn
41:26that before
41:27michael proctor
41:28had access
41:28to that
41:28taillight
41:29not a
41:30single piece
41:31was ever
41:31recovered
41:32at 34
41:32fairview
41:33that will
41:34become
41:34vitally
41:35vitally
41:36important
41:37and what
41:37about those
41:38shards of
41:38plastic
41:39by the way
41:39what about
41:40this
41:40DNA
41:42that the
41:43commonwealth
41:43mentioned
41:44they're going
41:45to try to
41:46dazzle you
41:46with talk
41:47of DNA
41:47because it
41:47sounds so
41:48scientific
41:48DNA was
41:50on the
41:50taillight
41:50but you'll
41:51learn that
41:51there was
41:51no DNA
41:52on the
41:53actual
41:54shards
41:54that they
41:55claim
41:55came in
41:56contact
41:56with
41:57John's
41:57arm
41:57none
41:59there was
42:02no blood
42:02no tissue
42:03no skin
42:03no DNA
42:04on a
42:05single
42:05shard
42:05of plastic
42:06that they
42:06claim
42:07cut deep
42:08abrasions
42:08into
42:09John's
42:09arm
42:09the arm
42:10that you
42:11saw
42:11overhead
42:11the DNA
42:13that was
42:14actually found
42:15the actual
42:15science will
42:16show it was
42:16found outside
42:17of the
42:18taillight housing
42:18where anyone
42:19with access
42:20to that
42:20vehicle
42:21would have
42:22touched
42:22and it
42:23wasn't just
42:23one male's
42:24DNA
42:24in that
42:24exact same
42:25sample
42:25there were
42:26three men
42:27found
42:27John
42:29and two
42:29unidentified
42:30males
42:30so unless
42:31the commonwealth
42:32is going to
42:32shift their
42:32theory
42:33that that
42:35SUV hit
42:35three men
42:36that night
42:36their entire
42:38theory falls
42:38apart
42:39and speaking
42:41of DNA
42:42the evidence
42:42will further
42:43establish that
42:43John O'Keefe's
42:44shoe
42:45the one that he
42:46was wearing
42:46when he was
42:46found
42:47was sampled
42:47and that
42:48DNA revealed
42:49five
42:51count them
42:52five
42:52unidentified
42:54males
42:54recall that the
42:56evidence will
42:57establish
42:57independently
42:58that John
43:00was injured
43:01someplace warmer
43:02and had to
43:03be moved
43:03onto that
43:05lawn
43:05five unidentified
43:07males
43:08touching that
43:09shoe
43:09you'll also
43:11learn that you
43:12are not the
43:12first person
43:13not the
43:14first to
43:15hear about
43:16the commonwealth's
43:17theory of this
43:17case
43:18that John
43:20was hit by
43:20an SUV
43:20that's their
43:21theory
43:22the commonwealth
43:23presented this
43:23exact same claim
43:24to their own
43:26medical examiner
43:26woman by the
43:28name of Dr.
43:28Irini Skordi
43:29Bello
43:30and you'll learn
43:31that after reviewing
43:32law enforcement
43:32what's called a
43:33law enforcement
43:34accident notifier
43:35with law enforcement's
43:37theory of the
43:38collision written in
43:39it
43:39defined in it
43:40after conducting
43:41the autopsy
43:42herself
43:42after examining
43:44John's injuries
43:44in detail
43:45she refused
43:46to conclude
43:48that John's
43:48death
43:49was a homicide
43:50based on the
43:51commonwealth's
43:52presentation
43:52and their
43:54theory
43:54that's right
43:55the commonwealth's
43:56own medical
43:57examiner
43:58will not deem
43:59the manner of
44:00death in this
44:01case
44:01this case
44:02a homicide
44:03she won't do it
44:05but they're
44:06nonetheless back
44:07again trying to
44:08present the exact
44:09same theory to
44:10you
44:10in this trial
44:12again
44:14the evidence
44:15will show that
44:16that is
44:17reasonable doubt
44:18throughout this
44:20trial
44:21the commonwealth
44:21will try to
44:22convince you
44:22of paranormal
44:23events
44:24phones calling
44:24themselves
44:25messages deleting
44:26themselves
44:26google searches
44:27made and then
44:28unmade
44:28evidence magically
44:30appearing and
44:30evidence magically
44:31disappearing
44:32but all that
44:33smoke
44:33and all those
44:34mirrors
44:35will not ever
44:36reach their
44:37burden
44:37because that's
44:40what this
44:40case is ultimately
44:41about
44:42it's about the
44:43commonwealth's
44:44burden proof
44:44you'll learn that
44:46during the trial
44:47the commonwealth
44:47bears the
44:48highest burden
44:49known to our
44:50justice system
44:50they must prove
44:52every element
44:53of every charge
44:54beyond a
44:55reasonable doubt
44:55and to a
44:56moral certainty
44:57and you'll
44:58learn that
44:59moral certainty
44:59means the
45:00highest level
45:01of certainty
45:02known in
45:03human affairs
45:04it's not a
45:05small thing
45:06they're not
45:08going to be
45:08able to do
45:08that
45:09not when
45:09every piece
45:10of this case
45:10was handled
45:11by a disgraced
45:11investigator
45:12with a motive
45:13to protect
45:14his friends
45:14not when
45:15the physical
45:15evidence
45:16contradicts
45:17their very
45:17theory
45:18not when
45:18their own
45:19medical examiner
45:20won't call
45:20this case
45:20a homicide
45:21based on
45:22the exact
45:22theory that
45:23they're presenting
45:23to you
45:24not when
45:26the conduct
45:26of those
45:27in the house
45:28and the utter
45:29lack of
45:30investigation
45:30speaks volumes
45:32about those
45:33who actually
45:34have something
45:35to hide
45:35by the end
45:38of this trial
45:38you'll conclude
45:39that Karen
45:39Reed
45:40is not guilty
45:41of hitting
45:42John O'Keefe
45:43with her SUV
45:44there was
45:45no
45:46collision
45:47she's the
45:49victim of a
45:50botched
45:50and biased
45:51and corrupted
45:51investigation
45:52that was never
45:53about the truth
45:54folks
45:54it was about
45:55preserving
45:55loyalty
45:56you'll find
45:58that this case
45:58is the very
45:59definition
45:59of reasonable
46:01doubt
46:01and at the end
46:02of this trial
46:03we'll ask you
46:03to return the
46:04only verdicts
46:05all three
46:06of them
46:06that are
46:07consistent
46:07with the
46:08evidence
46:09the science
46:10the truth
46:11and justice
46:13not guilty
46:14not guilty
46:16not guilty
46:19thank you