Trial Recap: Karen Read
01:08:27 Share

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Your gut affects everything, even your mood. So Oli created two brand new products to take care of your insides. Oli Big Ten Probiotic has 10 strains of probiotics, their most ever, to support a healthy gut microbiome, immune system, and stress response. And Oli Super Good Superfoods delivers 15 superfoods in tasty gummy form. Find them at Oli.com and exclusively at Walmart. Oli! These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

This MLB season, FanDuel's Dinger Tuesday is back. And this year, all customers get a profit boost to bet home runs every week. So gear up to go yard all season long on FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. 21 plus and presidents in the United States. Opt-in required. Bonus issued is novel jarvel profit boost tokens. Restrictions apply, including any token expiration and max wage or amount. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

To enjoy this episode of Forensic Tales ad-free, check us out on Patreon. Patreon.com slash Forensic Tales. Forensic Tales discusses topics that some listeners may find disturbing. The contents of this episode may not be suitable for everyone. Listener discretion is advised. In January 2022, Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found dead in the snow outside of the home of another police officer.

The case quickly captured national attention, not just because of the tragedy itself, but because of the woman accused of killing him, Karen Reed. If you've been following Forensic Tales, you might remember that we covered the full story of this case in a previous episode. Walking through the timeline, the key players, and the strange twist that led to Karen's arrest.

But today's episode is different. Now that the second trial has concluded and the jury has delivered their verdict, we're breaking down what happened inside that courtroom. We're focusing on the forensic evidence presented, what helped the prosecution, what raised questions for the defense, and how science played a central role in one of the most controversial trials in recent memory.

This is the Karen Reid Trial No. 2 Recap.

Before we get into the retrial, let's quickly go back to where all of this started. On the morning of January 29th, 2022, Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found unresponsive in the snow outside of a home in Canton, Massachusetts. That home belonged to another police officer, a guy named Brian Albert. John had spent the previous night out drinking with his girlfriend, Karen Reed, as well as several others.

The story goes that Karen dropped John off at a party at the Alberts house sometime after midnight. But what exactly happened after that remains up for debate, or at least prior to the conclusion of the retrial. Karen Reed was the one herself who called 911 early that morning.

She claimed she found John in the snow out in front of 34 Fairview, the home of former police officer Brian Albert. She said he had injuries to his face and his head. But what started as a mysterious death investigation quickly shifted when law enforcement turned their focus on Karen herself.

Within days, she was charged with a second-degree murder, accused of striking John with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow. Police and prosecutors alleged that Karen and John were on the verge of breaking up. She was drunk that night, and in a rage, she backed into him with her Lexus SUV while out front of 34 Fairview. Prosecutors alleged all the forensic evidence added up,

Karen's SUV had a broken rear taillight. Pieces of that rear taillight were found in the snow near John's body and that his injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle strike. From the beginning, Karen Reed's case has been anything but typical. Her defense argued that she was being framed by a group of law enforcement officers protecting one of their own.

They claim the real crime might have been committed inside the house, that John O'Keefe was beaten, possibly even mauled by a dog, and that his body was staged outside of the house to cover up what really happened to him. They say Karen never struck John with her Lexus SUV and that the forensic evidence backs that up.

It's a case packed with conflicting stories, small-town politics, and forensic evidence that both sides claim support their version of the truth.

The first trial started in April of 2024 and ended with a mistrial after jurors assigned to that case were unable to reach a unanimous decision. But during the retrial on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, just a couple days ago, Karen was found not guilty of second-degree murder and the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

The only charge she was found guilty of was driving under the influence. But when you're facing second-degree murder, I don't think she really cares about getting a year of probation for a simple DUI. So now that we know the jury's decision, let's get to my take on how we got here. The second trial started on April 1st, 2025 and lasted through June 11th.

Then jury deliberations began two days after closing arguments. So let's break down everything that happened, starting with the key players on both sides and what their forensic evidence was. The Commonwealth's case was led by special prosecutor and former defense attorney Hank Brennan.

This was a completely different prosecutor than we had during the first trial, Adam Lally. That decision was probably already a win for prosecutors. Many followers of this case, myself included, didn't think that Lally did as good of a job as he should have during that first trial. Now, when it came to the defense, Karen had her same lead attorney from the first trial, Alan Jackson.

But she also had Robert Alessi, a New York-based attorney, Victoria George, David Yannetti, and Elizabeth Little. Yes, that's a total of five lawyers all representing her. Alan Jackson is a former prosecutor. So is David Yannetti. And interestingly enough, Victoria George is a lawyer who served as an alternate juror during the first trial.

Testimony in the second trial spanned 29 days. This didn't include weekends, holidays, or certain days when court just wasn't in session. There was even a day when the court was canceled last minute because Karen or someone else involved in the case was sick, but the entire trial lasted 29 court days. Next, the witnesses for both sides.

The prosecution called 38 witnesses, according to NBC Boston, compared to more than 60 they called during the first trial, according to CBS News. A major difference suggesting that they had a much different strategy this time around. The Commonwealth focused more on analyzing evidence than establishing a strict timeline of the events like they did the first time around.

I think this was another win for them and a much smarter strategy to try and win the jury over. The defense, who we know isn't required to call any witnesses, the prosecution has the entire burden in this case. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in front of these jurors. They hold all the burden.

But we know that Karen's defense called seven witnesses, according to NBC Boston. Initially, they listed 91 potential witnesses.

But based on how the state laid out their case, they decided to call only seven of them. Now, Karen Reed, the defendant, wasn't one of them. She did not testify, which was probably a small victory here because, in my opinion, Karen has a very strong personality and she

A strong personality like that might not resonate with some people on the jury. So I personally think it was a very smart decision for her not to take the stand. So let's start with the Commonwealth's position at the second trial. According to special prosecutor Hank Brennan, the forensic science told a clear story that

that Karen, after a night of drinking, struck her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, with her Lexus SUV while making a three-point turn outside of the Albert home. 34 Fairview, an address you're going to hear a lot throughout this episode. She then left him to die in the freezing cold.

Their relationship had been falling apart for quite some time, and in this drunken rage, she caused John O'Keefe's death that night. But the defense alleged that the forensic evidence proved there was no collision. And if there was no collision, Karen Reed is innocent.

Here's a direct quote from Alan Jackson's opening statement to these jurors. Quote, End quote.

For me to grade these two opening statements, prosecutors versus defense, I think Alan Jackson was much better at being a storyteller and speaking directly to the jury. Now, did that have any impact on the ultimate verdict? I don't know.

During the first trial, Karen's defense seemed to lean more toward a conspiracy or a third-party culprit defense. They essentially accused dozens of people, including multiple law enforcement officers across multiple different agencies, of killing John O'Keefe and then turning around and trying to frame Karen for it.

But now, during the retrial, the defense seemed to abandon a lot of that and focused more on reasonable doubt. What does the forensic science say happened? Personally, I thought that was a much better strategy. Trying to convince a 12-member jury that dozens of people, including the police, are involved in a massive cover-up is a pretty steep hill to climb.

I like that they focused more on what the forensic evidence proved or disproved about the state's theory or strategy. So I think that worked for them, and given the verdict here of not guilty, I think the jury agreed. Let's now break down some of the state's key witnesses. One of the first people that Hank Brennan called to testify was John O'Keefe's mother, Peggy O'Keefe.

This was the first time she had ever spoken out publicly since her son's death. It was obviously very powerful and very emotional testimony to start off with. I think her testimony definitely had a lasting impression on the jury. You couldn't listen to this woman and not feel absolutely terrible for her.

She reminds us that there is a victim at the center of this story. These are real people, real crime victims.

Even though, after the verdict, even now, I feel absolutely terrible for her and what she's gone through as a mother. On the third day of trial, jurors heard about text messages between Karen and John in the hours leading up to his death.

This was the prosecution's first piece of forensic evidence. They said pointing toward the decline in their relationship, their downward spiral. It was obvious from these text messages they had been fighting.

"'Tell me if you're interested in someone else. "'Can't think of any other reason you've been like this,' Reed writes. "'Nope,' O'Keefe replies, adding in another message. "'Things haven't been great between us for a while. "'Ever consider that?'

Sick of always arguing and fighting. It's been weekly for several months now. So yeah, I'm not as quick to jump back into being lovey-dovey as you apparently, John O'Keefe says. These messages were sent back and forth just hours before she was accused of hitting him with her car. A big win for the prosecution in establishing a possible motive.

The jury knew that they had been fighting and that things weren't too great in their relationship at the time. On the fifth day, jurors visited Brian Albert's former home at 34 Fairview in Canton, the site of the incident.

They wanted them to have a visual of everything they were about to talk about. Where the driveway was, where Karen made that three-point turn, where the flagpole was, where John O'Keefe's body was found in relation to the house. They wanted these jurors to be able to picture everything that was about to be discussed throughout this very long trial.

Now, something to note, Karen opted not to go to the house, later telling reporters that she never, ever wanted to go back to 34 Fairview. So everyone but Karen Reed went to this location, went to this house. I also want to note here, Brian Albert and his family no longer live at 34 Fairview.

Sometime after John O'Keefe's death, they moved out and sold the house that had been in the Albert family reportedly for years. It's a strange detail that I have no idea what to make of it. She's made up her mind.

Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank. Brilliantly boring since 1865.

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save, and spend wisely, and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Try Greenlight risk-free today at greenlight.com slash Spotify.

On day five, the jury also heard from two more of the state's witnesses, a paramedic who took Karen to the hospital that day, the day that John's body was found, as well as a doctor who tested her blood alcohol level that morning. Another important piece of forensic evidence, especially when it comes to the question of just how much Karen had to drink that night.

And let's not forget, that was the only charge she was found guilty of, OUI, operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. So obviously, this was a win for the Commonwealth.

According to Dr. Jason Tracy, the emergency room doctor who treated Karen that morning, her BAC was at 0.093%. This was at 9 a.m. on January 29th. So this was about three hours after John's body had been discovered.

It would have also been roughly eight to eight and a half hours after prosecutors say that Karen hit John. But that doesn't tell us anything about what her blood alcohol level was at the time of John's death. This only tells us the amount of alcohol that she had in her system by 9 a.m.,

Well, later during the trial, the Commonwealth had a toxicologist testify about the Widmark retrograde analysis that was done, which is basically a method to help estimate a person's blood alcohol concentration at a past time.

And according to the toxicologist, Karen's BAC would have been roughly between 0.14 and 0.29% at 12.45 a.m. on January 29, 2022, the time of the incident.

So based on the prosecutor's expert forensic witness about this, Karen Reed would have been very intoxicated. Now, I know some people say she could have gone home after dropping John O'Keefe off in front of the Alberts house and started drinking. And maybe that explains the high BAC.

But I think you have to look back at some of Karen's TV interviews, specifically her interview for the show Dateline, where she admits to having five, six, maybe seven vodka sodas that night. Yes, she says in the Dateline episode that the drinks were watered down, but just how much did she have to drink that night?

Well, based on her conviction of the OUI, the jury obviously thought she was drunk, too drunk to safely operate a motor vehicle. So that's why she was found guilty of that particular charge. A key figure in this case took the stand very early on, Jen McCabe, a longtime friend of John O'Keefe's

And she was someone who was at the bars with John and Karen the night before. She was also with Karen when John's body was found out in front of 34 Fairview. On top of that, she was also inside of 34 Fairview that night, Brian Albert's house. So with all of these different connections, Jen McCabe is a very important witness for both sides, right?

And of course, the biggest part of her testimony centered around a text that she sent. How's long to die in cold? How's being a typo for how. So how long to die in cold? If you recall from the first trial, or even if you don't, that was a text message discovered on Jen McCabe's cell phone right after it was turned over to the authorities.

And the reason why she made that Google search and at what time were two very important questions for both Karen's defense as well as the prosecution. According to the Commonwealth, Jen McCabe sent that text at 6.23 a.m. on January 29, 2022 at the direction of Karen Reed.

She says she Googled it after Karen had asked her to and after finding John's body. So her testimony aligned with the Commonwealth's narrative. She searched out of genuine concern, trying to assess whether hypothermia might have contributed to John's condition in the yard.

Now, I apologize if I keep repeating facts that you already know. I'm mostly doing this for listeners who might not be as familiar with this case. But it was Karen Reed, Jen McCabe, and Carrie Roberts who found John's body out in front of 34 Fairview.

So you can picture these three women finding their friend in the snow, and Jen says she Googled how's long to die in cold because Karen had asked her to. When it comes to their interpretation of when exactly that Google search happened, the Commonwealth relied on data extracted from her cell phone, which according to them showed the timestamp of 623.

Hank Brennan, the prosecutor, argued that multiple people were already present at the scene by then, including Karen Reed, and that 911 had been called at 6.07. They presented this as a post-discovery behavior and not indicative of prior knowledge.

But if you ask the defense about that, they said the forensic data suggested that the Google search was actually made at 2.27 a.m., hours before John's body was discovered by Karen, Jen, and Carrie. If the jury found that to be true, it suggests Jen McCabe knew or suspected John was outside and in danger before anyone supposedly found him.

So here's what the Commonwealth's digital forensic experts said about this discrepancy in time. Jessica Hyde, a forensic data expert, testified that the earlier time of 227 simply indicates that's when Jen McCabe first opened the Safari browser tab.

She had opened the tab at 2.27 to check something for one of her kids' sports activities. Then she used the same Safari tab to make that Google search about hypothermia at around 6.30, again, at the direction of Karen Reed. However, the defense digital forensic expert, including potentially the use of Celebrite and other phone extraction tools, said,

claimed that raw phone data showed a 2.27 a.m. search timestamp. They argued that the phone's clock may have been altered or the timeline was somehow manipulated in some type of way by law enforcement tools or it happened sometime during the data extraction.

So that was the first major dispute of the forensic evidence that this jury had to sort out. Did Jen McCabe make that Google search at 2.27 as alleged by the defense's forensic data experts because she had already known or had some type of information about what happened to John?

Or was it made during a previously opened tab of Safari at the direction of Karen Reed?

If you ask me, that's a very important question because if the jury believed the defense's forensic experts that the search happened at 2.27 a.m., Jen McCabe already knew that John O'Keefe was dead or at least dying out in front of the Alberts' front door.

and therefore very likely that Karen Reed knew nothing about his death and likely didn't hit him with her SUV. But if some of them believed prosecutors, she only used an old tab. She only did it after discovering John's body a little after 6 o'clock that morning and knew nothing about his death.

This really came down to two forensic data experts who testified about two very different conclusions about the same data, a very common theme that you're going to find throughout this episode and throughout the trial. And based on the decision here, I think the jury likely saw some reasonable doubt here.

The next witnesses for the Commonwealth were Canton firefighter paramedic Katie McLaughlin, who testified about hearing Karen repeatedly say, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him at the scene.

as well as retired Canton Police Lieutenant Paul Gallagher, who testified about responding to the scene and using a leaf blower to move snow, not exactly the best piece of equipment to use at a potential crime scene.

Now, neither one of these witnesses offered much about the forensic evidence other than to suggest that the original investigation was very, very bad. Why would they use a leaf blower to try and collect forensic evidence at a scene?

There was also testimony later on about how blood and other key forensic evidence was collected and stored in red plastic cups. Yes, the same kind of red solo plastic cups we used to drink out of back in college. In my opinion, that wasn't good testimony for the Commonwealth.

To me, it showed just how bad this entire investigation was from a forensic evidence standpoint. And I think the jury saw that when making their decision to side with the defense. How can you convict someone of second-degree murder on such terrible forensic evidence collection using a leaf blower and using red solo cups?

On the 10th day of trial, several more witnesses took to the stand, and jurors heard a number of angry voicemails that Karen had left for John in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022. She basically says she hates him in many of them. She even calls him a pervert at one point.

Again, not great evidence if you're the defense because these voicemails show just how angry Karen was at John that night. It's not cold, hard forensic evidence, but it's definitely evidence that didn't look good for her in front of the jury.

Summer's here and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dress season ever. From beach days and weddings to weekend getaways in your everyday wardrobe. Discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango, Skims, Princess Polly, and Madewell. It's easy too with free shipping and free returns. In-store order pickup and more. Shop today in stores online at nordstrom.com or download the Nordstrom app.

May 8th, Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Uri Buchanek took the stand. He was another witness a lot of people wanted to hear from. Again, for those who aren't familiar with all of the key players, he was the former supervisor of disgraced Massachusetts State Police Officer Michael Proctor.

If you remember from the first trial or just know this case very well, you know that Michael Proctor was the lead investigator on this case. And he was subsequently fired from his position with the state police for how he handled this case, including being fired for text messages that he sent.

Michael Proctor was the one who texted his fellow buddies, including his supervisor, Yuri Buchanik, that after seizing Karen Reid's cell phone, he was disappointed that he didn't find any nude photographs of her. He also called her names, which I won't repeat on this podcast. He even said in one text that he hoped she killed herself.

Again, this was the lead detective assigned to John O'Keefe's death. So Michael Proctor was fired for this. He was fired for how he handled the death investigation and for sending these wildly inappropriate text messages. So on May 8th during the trial, we got to hear from his direct supervisor, Yuri Buchanik,

who also got in trouble. He wasn't fired like Michael Proctor was, but he was reprimanded by the state police. If I remember correctly, I think he just lost a week of his vacation or something over this. So for the Commonwealth, he helped establish the chain of custody of the

Pretty key and important physical and forensic evidence, including Karen's SUV. He emphasized to the jury that his subordinate, Michael Proctor, never touched or manipulated evidence, including that Lexus SUV.

This was something that the defense claimed, that this disgraced cop, Michael Proctor, might have manipulated key physical or forensic evidence in this case to try and pin this all on Karen Reed. Sergeant Buchanek also testified about seeing Karen's broken taillight, something that we're going to talk about in just a couple minutes.

Now, for the defense, they used him to poke holes in the Commonwealth's credibility, as well as show the jury just how bad this investigation was handled by the police from the very beginning.

Like, why a video from the police's sally port with Karen Reed's Lexus SUV was mirrored when it was originally shown to the jury? On direct, Sgt. Buchanek confirmed that the sally port video showed the passenger side taillight without noting that it was mirrored or inverted in any type of way.

But under cross-examination, he acknowledged the inversion and admitted uncertainty about manipulation. So I think that helped the defense attack his credibility. It wasn't a massive victory for the defense by any means, but it just poked another hole in the state's credibility as a whole. It basically showed the jury just how bad this original police investigation really was.

Now let's get into the meat and potatoes of the Commonwealth's forensic evidence that suggested Karen was guilty, but obviously cast enough reasonable doubt for the jury to acquit her. Number one, the broken taillight from her black Lexus SUV. This part of the case could probably take up an entire episode all on its own, but I only want to focus on what I think are the important parts about it.

The heart of the Commonwealth's case is that Karen's SUV struck John, breaking the right rear taillight in the process. They said red plastic fragments were found near John's body in the snow, and the same red pieces were found on John's clothing, therefore proving that a collision occurred at Fairview Road.

broken taillight on the defendant's vehicle, pieces of alleged taillight found next to the victim's body, some pieces found on the victim's clothing. Was that good testimony for the Commonwealth?

Well, yes. I think if you believed the pieces of red plastic did in fact come from Karen's Lexus SUV and you don't think they were planted at the scene, which we'll get to in just a second, that was good evidence for prosecutors.

But the defense's story was that one, the taillight was broken, but not from hitting John O'Keefe. They said the taillight broke after Karen backed into John's SUV while leaving his driveway to search for him the morning his body was discovered.

The jury was even shown surveillance footage from outside of John's home showing Karen's SUV coming into extremely close contact with his car. Based on the video, it really looked like she could have backed into it, causing the broken taillight.

And number two, those red pieces of plastic found near John's body in front of 34 Fairview, as well as on his clothing, might have been planted there by law enforcement. This is just another part of the defense's claim that this was all a cover up.

They questioned why it took two separate searches and several days for police to find those taillight shards. They weren't found until days later. And they also questioned why some of the pieces were found in multiple locations, like on the lawn and in the snow banks, which the defense said didn't align with a single point impact.

So what started as really, really strong and good forensic evidence for the Commonwealth, I think it ended up benefiting the defense, at least in creating more reasonable doubt about how the taillight broke in the first place, offering up a second explanation that has video evidence. You can see from this video just how close, if not more,

getting into contact Karen's car did with John's car that morning it's on the same side of the vehicle it's not hard to imagine that that's how her taillight broke in the beginning and how those pieces ended up near the body and on John's sweatshirt and

The jury didn't have to be convinced about the defense's story regarding the broken taillight. They didn't have to be 100% sure that the Commonwealth story is correct or the defense's story about how the taillight broke and how the pieces got at the scene or how it got on John O'Keefe's clothing.

There just had to be enough reasonable doubt. And based on the verdict and based on what we know today, I think there was. Number two, DNA. Nicholas Bradford, who is a technology data analyst for the Virginia-based Bode Technology Lab, testified for the Commonwealth.

saying that a piece of apparent hair was found on the back of Karen's SUV on the taillight. And when the hair was tested, it came back positive for three DNA profiles. And based on additional testing, he said there was a strong likelihood that John's DNA matched with the DNA on the taillight extraction.

Quote, it is at least 740 no-nillion times more likely to be observed if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown related individuals than from three unknown unrelated individuals, he said, noting that no-nillion, if I'm saying that correctly, is a number with 30 zeros.

Then there was Tess Chart's testimony, a technology forensic DNA analyst at the same lab. She said there was a 95% confidence that the hair found on the rear of Karen's SUV was a match for John O'Keefe.

So again, broken taillight pieces, or at the very least, pieces of red plastic consistent with Lex's taillight, are alleged to have been found on the victim's clothing. The same red pieces were found in the snow around his body, underneath his body. Now the victim's DNA has allegedly been found on the same broken taillight.

All physical and all forensic evidence that the Commonwealth alleged proved that John was hit by Karen's Lexus. Instead of cross-examining most of these witnesses, the defense basically said, hey, it didn't matter if John O'Keefe's DNA was found either on or inside of Karen Reed's car.

That's her boyfriend. Of course his DNA and his hair would be all over that SUV. They were even together the night of the incident. John was inside of Karen's SUV that night. So of course, of course his DNA and his hair are going to be found in and around the vehicle.

But beyond that, the defense also questioned the integrity of the evidence due to the SUV being driven in towed. According to them, there was a strong possibility of contamination or even manipulation, and I think some of the jury agreed with that.

For those who followed the first trial, you'll remember that a huge part of the defense's case was about a conspiracy. Simply put, the police planted physical and forensic evidence in this case.

So if you believe in police corruption or conspiracies, you might argue that a piece of John O'Keefe's hair was planted on the SUV in order to frame Karen Reed. You also can't ignore the weather the night that John died. It was a massive snowstorm. So Karen's defense argued that

How would a single strand of hair survive on the outside of the SUV for so long in a snowstorm?

Not only did Karen drive home that night from 34 Fairview, the SUV was then towed by the police and taken to the police station. So how did a single piece of the victim's hair stay on the outside of the SUV during this massive weather event?

In my opinion, the alleged hair on the taillight isn't a big deal. There are, in my opinion, a million ways for John's DNA or hair and a million ways for how it could have gotten on Karen's SUV in the first place. And again, I think that's probably how the jury saw it as well. It's just another brick in this wall of reasonable doubt.

Number three, the forensic evidence that a collision even happened in the first place. If you watched parts of Alan Jackson's opening statements, you'll remember that he basically opened by telling this jury there was no collision. You have to find Karen Reid innocent because there's zero forensic evidence supporting that a collision even took place.

So let's talk about the Commonwealth's forensic evidence about a collision. Throughout the trial, we heard a lot about the SUV's tech stream data. What sort of maneuvers Karen's car performed that night? Was there a collision triggered in the tech stream data? That sort of thing. Shannon Burgess, a forensic analyst from the company Aperture, was the one who testified for the state about that.

Now, before I talk about what Shannon Burgess said the tech stream data meant, two things about Burgess. One, right before he took the stand, he submitted a supplemental report mid-trial revising the timeline of certain key Lexus trigger events, the reverse maneuver and the three-point turn.

This supplemental report was meant to align with John O'Keefe's phone lock time. This quote-unquote shift was extremely important to the Commonwealth's argument that a collision occurred during that reverse event.

Burgess adjusted for a previously unaccounted clock variance between the Lexus system and John O'Keefe's iPhone. This amendment claimed this alignment only became clear after syncing, which in their view confirmed the timing of the collision sequence.

But for Karen's defense, this supplemental report was a complete ambush. This expert, Shannon Burgess, had never throughout his career ever submitted a supplemental report, especially not mid-trial. So the timing of it seemed highly unusual and highly suspicious.

Number two, it was alleged during this trial that Shannon Burgess had lied about his credentials on his resume or CV. Basically, he had on his CV, as well as his LinkedIn profile, that he had a bachelor's degree, which, as it turns out, is a lie. He doesn't have a bachelor's degree.

He also admitted making errors such as mixing up bits with bytes, something that even I myself, someone who is by no means a tech expert, knows the difference between. Is someone like this even credible or qualified as an expert of forensic data extraction? But besides all of that, here's what he testified to for the Commonwealth.

The Lexus TechStream data indicates a three-point turn and reverse event at around 12.32 a.m., synchronized with John O'Keefe's iPhone locking, suggesting that Karen Reed struck him while backing up.

He identified two trigger events in the vehicle's internal tech stream, backing maneuver and three-point turn, based on data extracted from a chip and a micro SD card within the SUV.

So the prosecution's argument is one, the synchronization places the vehicle in reverse at the same time John O'Keefe's iPhone is locked, bolstering the collision timeline. And number two, the logged events reflect vehicle movement in the driveway area consistent with a collision.

But Burgess's testimony had some serious weaknesses that I don't think helped the Commonwealth. One, his testimony was critiqued for misusing terms like trigger versus event.

and overstating recording window consistency. Two, Burgess acknowledged that no explicit collision indication appears in the tech stream data logs, only shows that Karen's SUV reversed, went backward, and did a three-point turn. And finally, his decision to lie about his education was,

opened the door for Karen's defense to cross-examine him on his credibility as an expert witness, which I think really helped the defense and likely influenced this jury. So now let's talk about the defense's expert on the SUV's forensic data. Their claim was that there's no forensic certainty that Karen's SUV collided with John's.

TechStream data shows the vehicle's maneuvers, but no collision was triggered. Here's what I think are the main parts of this part of the testimony. Matthew DeSogra, the defense's forensic data expert, analyzed Aperture's reports and found that in nearly all of the clock alignment scenarios,

John O'Keefe locked his iPhone after the SUV's reverse maneuver, challenging the prosecution's claim that a collision occurred before that. He also emphasized that tech stream triggers, reverse turns, aren't collision events. In similar maneuvers on equivalent vehicles, no collision was detected, something that I've already mentioned.

So here's what that came down to, in my opinion. If you believe the Commonwealth's expert Shannon Burgess, the collision happened at around 12.32, lining up within seconds of the last lock event on John's iPhone at 34 Fairview.

Then after that, John never uses his cell phone again, and there's no activity because he's dead or he's dying in the snow. But for the defense, they said there's evidence showing John O'Keefe used his iPhone after the timestamp the Commonwealth says the collision happened.

How could John use his iPhone after being struck by a 6,000-pound SUV at speeds of over 20 miles per hour? Matthew DeSogra concluded that was the defense's expert. Even accounting for clock drift is how he referred to it.

the data would more likely support John being alive after Karen's SUV reversed, basically undermining the collision ever happened. So bottom line, I think both experts energized their side's narrative there.

But because Shannon Burgess's analysis had clear vulnerabilities, Matthew DeSogre's testimony likely sharpened the defense's fight to sow doubt rather than outright disprove the collision theory. Again, all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. And I think if you have experts...

like Matthew DeSogra, say that, hey, even if you account for clock variances between the clock that's inside of Karen Reid's SUV and the clock that's on John O'Keefe's iPhone, even if you account for 10, 15 second clock variances, in most possibilities,

Accounting for that clock variance, John O'Keefe used his iPhone after the Commonwealth says the reverse maneuver happened in Karen Reed's SUV. Therefore, he used his cell phone after the collision, which based on the injuries, which we're going to talk about, couldn't have happened.

Long work weeks and busy weekends can leave you feeling and looking depleted. Prolon's five-day fasting mimicking diet works at the cellular level to rejuvenate you from the inside out, providing real results. And now they're upping their game with the next-gen five-day program, delivering the same science-backed benefits in a cleaner, more convenient, and more flavorful format.

Developed over decades at USC's Longevity Institute and backed by top U.S. medical centers, Prolon has been shown to support biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss, and energy. I did the five-day program and I feel so much better. Now I can't wait to experience Prolon NextGen and continue to see results.

For a limited time, you can be first in line to experience the new next gen at Special Savings.

Prolon is offering Forensic Tales listeners 15% off site-wide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their five-day program. Just visit ProlonLife.com slash Forensic Tales. That's P-R-O-L-O-N-L-I-F-E dot com slash Forensic Tales to claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift.

ProlonLife.com slash Forensic Tales. America's energy future begins now. We have the opportunity to strengthen our economy and reduce inflation. And with this opportunity comes great responsibility. Working together, we can harness our energy advantage and improve the lives of every American.

More American energy means more jobs, more security, and more innovation. That's the promise of America's oil and natural gas. America's moment is now. Learn more at LightsOnEnergy.org. Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. And now, here we are, number four, John O'Keefe's injuries. Is the forensic pathology consistent with a vehicle collision or not?

Just like during the first trial, Dr. Scordibello testified. She was the medical examiner who performed John's autopsy back on January 31st, 2022. Although she ruled on the cause of death, blunt impact head injuries, she wasn't able to determine the manner of death, homicide, accident, she couldn't say.

And in my opinion, that was a huge victory for the defense that definitely influenced the jury's decision. Even the state's own medical examiner couldn't say exactly how John died. Yes, he had blunt force head injuries, but was that the result of being struck by a Lexus SUV driven by Karen Reed, the defendant, or was it caused by something else?

To this day, no one knows the answer to that. That was really the main question at trial. And again, in my opinion, a huge plus for the defense. Anytime there's a medical examiner saying that he or she couldn't determine the manner of death in a criminal case like this is a huge victory for the defendant.

That brings us to John O'Keefe's arm, arguably one of the most confusing parts about this case. How did John get those strange, cut-like injuries on his right arm? Was it caused by Karen's taillight, or was it caused by something else? Say, a dog attack, as alleged by Karen's defense.

Dr. Judson Welcher, a crash reconstructionist and biomechanical engineer for Aperture, testified on May 27, 2025, which was day 21, as well as May 28 through May 29. He was the Commonwealth's witness on this.

He demonstrated through a paint transfer test that taillight fragments could scratch the surface of the arm during this reverse collision. So in short, the broken taillight shards caused those strange cuts that we see on John O'Keefe's forearm.

They were surface-level, superficial wounds consistent with contact with the taillight. Now, the defense's argument? The cuts were caused by a dog or possibly defensive wounds. Dr. Marie Russell, a dog bite expert, testified for Karen's defense.

She described the marks on John's arm as arch-like scratches consistent with a dog's front teeth. They were incomplete bites, scratches not penetrating deep into the muscle or into the fat, and she also confirmed the wounds occurred while John was still alive, evidenced by what she described as a vital reaction or inflammation in the tissue.

The defense also had Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer, testify. He said the arm injuries were, quote, inconsistent with contact from the fractured taillight area of the SUV, end quote. His reconstruction showed the abrasion severity and pattern more aligned with a pre-death fight, possibly involving a dog bite, than a vehicle collision.

Finally, there was forensic pathologist Dr. Elizabeth LaPasada. She ultimately testified that the arm abrasions were superficial scrapes, lacking depth, and could have likely come from an animal.

So once again, here's powerful forensic evidence that definitely influenced the jury. There was a lot of reasonable doubt about how John got those strange cuts on his arm. The jury didn't have to be convinced that a dog attacked John O'Keefe that night. There just had to be enough reasonable doubt.

Now that we've broken down the forensic evidence presented by both the Commonwealth and the defense, it's clear just how much this trial relied on interpretation. The collision theory, the timeline of the events, the injuries to John O'Keefe.

All of it came down to how each side framed the science and what they wanted the jury to see in that data. On one hand, the prosecution pointed to the vehicle tech stream logs, timing alignments, and scratch patterns as signs that Karen Reed did in fact reverse her SUV into John O'Keefe that night.

On the other hand, the defense used that same data to argue it proves nothing and that if anything, it cast doubt on whether a collision happened at all.

Even the smallest details, like broken glass, taillight shards, and phone activity, became key battlegrounds. And while experts tried to explain their conclusions, the courtroom still saw two very different pictures of what happened that night. So with the forensic evidence fully laid out, the question becomes, what did the jury believe?

What carried the most weight in that deliberation room? Why did they ultimately decide on not guilty? For the jury, this case wasn't just about what happened. It was about how sure they could be about what happened.

They weren't being asked to determine what was possible or even plausible. They were being asked to decide whether the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Karen Reed killed John O'Keefe. And when it comes to the forensic evidence, doubt can hide in even the smallest of gaps.

The jury may have asked, was the text stream data a smoking gun or just a trail of suggestive timing? Were the scratches on John's arm the result of shattered taillight fragments or something else entirely? Did the blood found on the snowbank really prove a crash or could it have come there some other way?

Both sides gave them a different lens through which to view the same pieces of evidence. The prosecution told a story of a fatal reverse collision, of panicked decisions, and of a cover-up disguised as concern. The defense countered with a story of selective investigation, alternative suspects, and forensic evidence that simply didn't add up.

In the end, the jury had to decide which story the forensic evidence truly supported, and whether it supported that story beyond a reasonable doubt. After weeks of testimony, dozens of witnesses, and intense national attention, the jury found Karen Reed not guilty on all counts related to the death of John O'Keefe.

It was a verdict that sparked strong reactions on both sides and brought an end to one chapter of this high-profile case. But while the criminal trial is now over, Karen Reed still faces a separate civil lawsuit for the wrongful death of John O'Keefe, filed by his family.

That case, which operates under a lower burden of proof, could bring a new round of evidence and legal scrutiny in the months to come. For now, the jury has spoken, and the question of what really happened that night remains a subject of deep division and debate. To share your thoughts on this week's episode, follow us on Instagram and Facebook.

If you want to hear my personal take on the case, sign up to become a patron at patreon.com slash forensic tales. After each episode, I release a bonus episode where I share my personal thoughts on the case in more detail. Don't forget to subscribe to Forensic Tales so you never miss an episode. We release a new episode every Monday. If you love the show, please consider leaving us a positive review. It helps the show grow.

You can also support the show through Patreon. Thank you so much for joining me this week. Be sure to tune in next week for a new case. Until then, remember, not all stories have happy endings.

Forensic Tales is a Rockefeller Audio production. The show is written and produced by me, Courtney Fretwell. If you'd like to help create compelling new cases, fund research, and assist with production and editing costs, you can support the show with a small monthly contribution. In return, you'll be the first to listen to new ad-free episodes and gain access to exclusive content.

Thank you so much to this week's newest Patreon supporter, Courtney C. To learn more, please visit patreon.com slash forensic tales. Forensic Tales is a podcast made possible by our Patreon producers.

Okay.

If you'd like to become a producer of this show, head over to our Patreon page or email me at Courtney at ForensicTales.com. Thank you for listening. I'll see you next week. Until then, remember, not all stories have happy endings.

For the ones who get it done, the most important part is the one you need now, and the best partner is the one who can deliver. That's why millions of maintenance and repair pros trust Grainger, because we have professional-grade supplies for every industry, even hard-to-find products, and we have same-day pickup and next-day delivery on most orders. But most importantly, we have an unwavering commitment to help keep you up and running. Call, click Grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done.