Transcript for:
Karen Reed Trial Insights and Analysis

Hey there, Karen Reed, trial watchers. You know what? A lot of the trials we cover remind me of that the world is unfortunately very unpredictable. And I'll tell you what, having a great lawyer matters so much. That is where a great partner and sponsor, Morgan and Morgan, comes in. This is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? Because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a 9 3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case, you know, isn't worth millions of dollars. Why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. That's it. It can all be done on your phone. So, if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com/lcive by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. Hey there, Karen Reed, trial watchers. You know what? A lot of the trials we cover remind me of that the world is unfortunately very unpredictable. And I'll tell you what, having a great lawyer matters so much. That is where a great partner and sponsor Morgan and Morgan comes in. This is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? Because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case, you know, isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. That's it. It can all be done on your phone. So, if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com/lc live by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. What? 68 101 68 111 6810 68. Uh, Commonwolf versus Reed. Council had asked to see you before the jury came over, your honor. All right. Good morning. Good morning, honor. So, what is it you wanted to see me about, Mr. Brennan? I was handed clips 12 A and 16. I I think it's 12 and 12 A that you should have. Oh, okay. Yeah, 12 from yesterday. You have 12 from yesterday. 12A is in addition. This is regarding the evidentary issue of Jen McCabe's phone call to John O'Keefe when she was giving directions and she identified the location by pointing out Bella's mom's house. Okay. I believe that those two clips will have statements of the defendant which will establish the predicate for allowing in that statement uh by Miss McCabe and then I expect to play those clips after Miss McCabe's testimony concludes. All right. What do you say, Mr. Jackson? That does not cure the the hearsay aspect. I understand Mr. Brenn's uh argument about the relevance to his case of what Miss Reed said and her statements that's obviously this was a mission of the party statement that does not do anything to cure the hearsay that was being asked or requested by this witness to address the statements that sought yesterday. If you want to give clips, he would do so. I hope the election to that as long as they would in context and and they pass the relevancy test, but it doesn't appear that he says she so Miss McCabe testified my notes for whatever it's worth said at the end of the day, one of the things she testified to was the defendant on the morning when they were driving over to Fairview was saying, um, could you be cheating on her? Could he be with Bella's mom? Yes. So that's in evidence. Do you want more than that? What do you expect you the testimony to be? I expect if allowed to testify, Miss Mc Mrs. McCabe would testify that she had a phone call with John O'Keefe before John O'Keefe and the defendant arrived at Fair View. And John O'Keefe and the defendant were lost. And in giving directions, she offered to John O'Keefe, which was heard by the defendant, um, the house is near Bella's mom's house. That is evidence of motive. All right. just that that she said, "Yeah, I'm going to allow that." I don't have a problem with that. Yesterday, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought Mr. Brennon was trying to get in the nature of the relationship between Bella and John, which would be hearsay. I have no problem with this offer proof. Yeah. It's a little bit different than yesterday. Okay. All right. And I understand the the loop you'll make eventually, but this is all you intend to get through, Miss McCabe, now, right? Yes. Okay. Yes. Because I don't think from what I heard, she knows of that relationship at that time. Okay. Okay. So, I don't think I should ask that. Okay. That she was giving directions and Yep. That's fine. That That's fine. And then those clips can come in. Great. Fantastic. Thank you. All right. So, we'll bring the jurors over. The only thing I would ask is not be played witness stand. Agreed. Okay. All right. Let's bring the jurors over. Do you need me to take a recess? Okay. Yes. Yes. You are He present your tenant. I shall be heard of your shall be Massachusetts. This court is now open. You may be seated. All right. Good morning again, council. Good morning, Miss Reed. Good morning, Jones. Good morning. We appreciate you being prompt and ready to go this morning. It was something I needed to discuss with the lawyers to help streamline the evidence that'll be presented to you today. So, I appreciate your patience. I do have to ask you those questions. Were you all able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday? Everyone said yes or nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow my instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes or affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see here or read anything about this case since we left yesterday? No. Everyone said no or shook their heads. Thank you very much. Could we have Miss McCabe back, please? Mr. K, I'll remind you you're still under road. Thank you. Good morning, Miss McCabe. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Before you take us back to Fair View Road, I want to ask you a couple questions about John's house at Meadows. Are you familiar with his house? Yes. Have you seen the front of his house before? Yes, I have. Are you familiar with his driveway? Yes. Are you familiar with whether there's any surveillance system at Mr. O'Keefe's house? Yes. Can I approach your honor? Yes. M. McCabe, I'm showing you what has been previously marked as exhibit 6. Do you recognize that photo? Yes, I do. And what is it? That's John O'Keefe's house. Could we provide exhibit six to the jury, please? On that screen, is that Mr. O'Keefe's home? Yes. Show what's been marked as exhibit 8. Do you recognize that? Yes. And what is it? That is the side of Mr. Keat's house. Um, the two garage doors. Is there any indication of surveillance? Uh, looks is this a ring camera right here? Looks Is that what Donald Key's house looks like? Yes. Okay. Want to show you exhibit 10. Do you recognize what's in that photo? Yes. What is it? Um, it is the driveway at John O'Keefe's. You see a car to the left? Yes. Do you know whose car that is? Yes. That's uh Miss Reads. Is that where you left it the night before those early morning hours when you drove to Mroy's house? Yes. I want to show you it's been marked as exhibit 11. You recognize in that photo? Yes. Miss Reed's vehicle. Is that the vehicle that M showed you with the broken missing tail light that morning? Yes, it is. You mentioned earlier in the night you spoke to John O'Keefe when you called him or he called you about directions to Fair View Road. Yes. And you also shared that you had a phone conversation offering directions. Yes, I did. Um, did you tell John that the um house at Fair View was near Bella's mom's house? Sustained as for Mr. Bren. Okay. Um, what did you tell John as far as directions to Fairview? How did you mark it for him? I told him to go by um past Bella's house, uh, the Bella Street and then to follow it down to the end. Now I want you to take us back where we were yesterday when we left off. You had brought us to Fair View Road. You had found John. Yes. You shared with us that you were trying chest compressions. Um before the chest compressions, did you make a phone call? I called 911. I'd like to move to introduce a copy of that 911 call. Okay. Do you have something physically to Thank you. Mr. Mclofflin does. Thank you. 45. Thank you. With the court's permission, I'd like to play exhibit 45. Yes. No. Um, yes. I need someone tell people that they passed out in the snow. Hold on. Okay. Yeah. I can keep like Okay. I know. Where's the people? 911. What's your immediately 34 road map? What's going on? There's a guy I responded in the snow in the south. 34. Yes. 34. The Alpha resident. Yes. I just pulled up behind it. Okay. 34. of you can emergency. Hello. Yes. Can you come to 34 road in Houston? 34. Yes. There's a man unresponsive in the snow. Okay. In the uh he's got to be here. Okay. Okay. What's going on? Down. We we just came over. Okay. Who's that in the background? Is that someone? That's his girlfriend. His name is John. Okay. How old is he? John is um 46 years old. 46. How long has he been outside? I don't know. Um I I don't know. He got out of the car and a couple of hours. Did he carry? I don't I I don't I don't know if you There are two women trying to heat and Okay. Can you just try asking? I know it's tough, but we have the five bill. They just got to know. Okay. Okay. They know how to do CPR cuz they want to test CPR. Can you guys do CPR? No. I guess he's gone. Okay. They don't feel comfortable doing so. We don't know. I think he passed away. Okay. All right. We got the fire department and the police department on the way. If anyone's just planning CPR, then I can I'll hang up with you and um if anything changes, you can give us a call back. Where are you guys upside? I know. I know. I'm on the phone with the news. I know. I know. I know. I know. Honey, I know. I know. Carrie, you got to get off somebody. Carrie, you got to get off of him. you know there was any uh alcohol drugs involved he he had um they had enough but I'm talking hours about maybe and I I don't know okay is there any bleeding I think maybe in his head his head out yes possibly I seem to be bleeding in the face okay bleeding from the face all right Yes. How big is the pool if there is any? Um, so kind of note that one of the women that is doing CPR. Okay. One of the only one is doing CPR. Yes. All right. If she CPR, just let me just give us a call back and be responsible. Right. But we're on our way. Okay. Miss McCabe, describe your mental state when you were speaking to 911. Um, I guess the best way to describe it was I was in shock. Um, my heart was racing. Um, I was trying to be as helpful as I could and get the information to, um, the most important information out, um, as quick as I could to the 911 operators. Um, but also the scene there with Karen and, um, Carrie was a bit chaotic between the two of them. Um, so I I was just trying my best to be as calm as I could to get help there as fast as I could and to answer their questions the best that I could. Before you told the 911 operator John O'Keefe's name and his age, um, you said there's a man in the snow. Do you know why you chose those words? I think I just wanted to get out the the most specific details. So, a man in the snow verse, you know, John O'Keefe and into a story. I think I just was get the details to them as fast as possible to get help there to him as fast as possible. When you told the 911 operator that um your friend John O'Keefe was the person lying in the snow, how did you know his age? Um we used to joke cuz he was a couple months older than me. So I would, you know, say, "Oh, you're older than me." He was silly little thing between friends. When you called the 911 operator, had Carrie and the defendant already been around or near John? Yes. Do you know if they had begun trying CPR before you called 911? I'm not sure if they had because Karen had straddled him and was lifted her shirt, was warming him up, and then Carrie was yelling at her to get off. And I think when Carrie um got the blankets and was trying to put them under John, I think as she started to move him and wipe him, blood started to come out. And um then Karen was afraid that he was going to choke on his blood and wanted to move him on his side. But then Carrie was yelling at her, "We can't move him." And this was kind of all going on while I was talking to 911. You described what you saw and you said at some point he was bleeding from the face area. Was that before or after he was moved? After. Um before he was moved, did you see any active bleeding? No. After you call 911, what do you do next? I I think I called my sister and she didn't answer. And then as I think I called her as I was walking over to John and she didn't answer and then I immediately got down on the ground and Carrie Roberts asked me to take over. How long did you try to help John for? I'm not sure. Uh I'm not sure. How long were you and the defendant and Miss Roberts there before someone else arrived? um police officer was the first to arrive. It in the moments it seemed like a long time but I think it was fairly quick that they arrived. Any point during the time when you tried to help Mr. O'Keefe and the first police officer arrived at any point did you see any signs of life from Mr. O'Keefe? No. When the police officer first arrived, do you remember what happened next? Um, I remember I remember there was it was very chaotic, but there was talk about a spotlight and I remember I think I got up and ran to kind of wave the um to grab to get the police officer's attention so we could see where we were. And then what happened? Um, the police officer, not sure specific, I do remember him asking um about John. I think he said, "Is he a drug user?" He was just asking some basic questions. And what's the environment? What's going on around you? Um Karen's just running around crazy, like just yelling, screaming. Um kind of like a ping pong. What are you trying to do? I was just trying to talk to the officer. Um, I guess I just went into this like type of u mode of all right, I have to just talk to the talk to him, get the information out, figure out like how we can best help John and like what happened to him and try to save him ultimately. And what happens next? Um, more officers begin to come um fire an EMT. Um, so the scene becomes active with a lot of different presence. Um, you know, John, I I think they um lift John onto a board at one point. Um, the officers are asking us questions. Um, Karen's kind of coming over, talking to the questions, and then kind of just running away, and then she runs back over. She's doing a lot of screaming, a lot of repetitive, "Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead?" Um, you know, could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Um, Carrie, I think, is make Carrie's off kind of making phone calls. Um, I believe to John's family. Do you know what time the first responders lifted John from the ground and put him on that bed? Um, I don't know a time, but it was Okay, that's the only question. Okay. Um, you heard your 911 call. Do you know the time of that 911 call? Not off the top of my head. No. At some point, did you talk to a number of different people at the scene? Yes. And who were you talking to? Um, the first officer was Officer Sarif. I know. I spoke with him. Um, I spoke with an officer Lank. Um, an officer Good. Um, there were other officers. I don't remember their names. Um, there were EMTs. I don't remember their names either. You have lived in this area for a long time? Yes. Active in the community? Yes. Did you know Sergeant Good from before that night? I knew of him. I didn't know him personally. Did you know Detective Lank? Yes, I knew him. How did you know him? We were um friendly. Um your children ever associate with each other? Um not until recently. After you had a chance to speak to some of the officers, did you move around at all yourself? Yes, I um you know, I kind of the officers would talk to us here and then a little bit over to the side. Um I tried to comfort Miss Reed. Um we um at one point Miss Reed was very upset. Um and one of the offices thought it would be best if maybe she went and just sat in um one of the cruisers for a little bit cuz she was just doing a lot of screaming and yelling. And I think they were just trying to, you know, get, you know, work on John and make the scene a little less chaotic. Um, so I went into the back of the car with her and Carrie Roberts came over. Um, and then we all were just sat in the back of the Well, I Carrie, uh, Karen and I kind of were scrunched and sitting in the back and Carrie was at the door of the cruiser. Why did you get in the car with the defendant? Um, she was crying. She asked me to get in. Um, we held hands. Um, we prayed. um she did have blood on her hands and she said, "Could I have gotten my period?" Um who's going to take care of the kids? She just kind of was all over the place. Um and then at one point we saw um them moving John towards the um ambulance. And at that point um Miss Reed started yelling to Miss Robbins, "Go check on him. Are they working on him? Is he Is he dead? Is he dead?" And at that point, myself and Miss Reed got out of the car and um she started yelling and pulling on me to um Google hypothermia and Google how long it takes for somebody, you know, to die in the cold. When the defendant first asked you to Google an inquiry about hypothermia, were you still inside the police cruiser or were you outside? Um outside. What was the weather? I know it's an obvious question, but how cold was it? Um, it was very cold, windy, the snow was blowing. Um, as I stated, I have um multiple scerosis. So, when I am out in either extremely hot or cold temperatures, I lose um the feeling and sensation in my fingers. Um, which obviously made the googling very hard for me to do because of my, you know, motor skills. So, when you were outside of the car with the defendant and she had asked you to do a search regarding hypothermia, did you try to do that? Yes, I did. Do you know the exact time from your memory? Not from reading or learning, but from your memory. Do you remember the exact time you did that? No. Um, was it after the police came that morning? Yes. Had you ever ever attempted to search about hypothermia any time before that moment that morning? No. Or that day? No. That week? No. Was this the first time that morning after the defendant asked you to search that you searched that phrase? Yes, it was. And did you complete your search and get a result? So, I think I don't know what came up because I think as I entered it, I don't I think I misspelled things. Um, and so then I think I tried a second search. Um, and again, I don't think I even paid attention to what came up because we were already on to the next thing. Karen was already moving and screaming about, you know, the next thing to carry. Are they working on him as he did? Did the defendant move somewhere from the point when she first asked you to try to Google about hypothermia to something else? I she was next to me and then I think she took off like she kept kind of running off. And what did you do? Um I believe as they were putting I think I stood there. I believe as they were putting John into the ambulance I went back kind of where to the original spot where where he had been talking to the police. And at that point, a new officer might have come because I remember talking to multiple officers there. At some point, did you go back towards the area of Miss Robert's car? Yes, that's where I'm referring to. Sorry. Um, at some point at some point were you with the defendant when she spoke to an officer and a first responder? Um, yes. Do you remember if the first responder was a man or a woman? I remember there was a woman right next to us. Yes. Do you remember if that was before or after the defendant asked you to search about hypothermia? I'd be guessing if I I then don't don't guess. Mhm. When the defendant was speaking to the first responder, the woman, were you near? Yes. Did you hear or do you remember the defendant saying anything to the first responder? Yes. What did she say? Um, she told the first responder, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. When she told the first responder I hit him, how did you react? I was um like startled, kind of like, "What are you saying? What are you talking about?" Did you say anything to the defendant? Um I think after the second or third time she was saying it, I was like, "Karen, Karen, like what are you saying?" Why were you trying to interrupt her? Because I thought she was just talking crazy and I'm saying, "Why is she saying she hit him?" Were you trying to look out for her? Yeah. Yeah. sustain. I'll strike it. You can ask it differently. What was your motivation for trying to interrupt the defendant making the statements to the first responder? Karen was hysterical, irrational, kind of. I'll move on. Okay. I'm going to see counsel at Side by for just a minute, please. Matt, after you made the search at the defendants's request for an inquiry regarding hypothermia, Um, did you have a chance to speak to the officers further? Yes. Did they ask you to do anything or go anywhere? Um, yes. Um, Officer Lang asked me to go into um my sister's house and to wake them up. And your sister's name again? My sister Nicole. And that is the house you were in the night before? Yes. And after you spoke to the officer, they requested you go in to speak to your sister, did you? Yes. Was there any directive on what you should speak to your sister about? No. After the officers asked you to go into the house, did you? Yes, I did. Do you remember what door you went through? Yes, I went through the front door. Was the door locked? Yes. How did you get in? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said was it unlocked? No, I asked if it was locked. Oh, sorry. It was unlocked. As you're approaching the house, were there any lights on? No. Was it dark? Yes. Any sign of any movement inside the house before you went in? No. Take us through walking through the front door. What happens? Um, so I went in the front door. I opened the door. I um walked up the stairs into their hallway and then I kind I think I knocked on their door. Um bedroom door. their bedroom door. And then I kind of I opened the door. I went in and I I walked over to the bed and I was like, "Brian, Nicole, Brian, Nicole." Because I was like I I was in a position where I felt like the world was going on around me. So much was happening. But I also was aware that I was just about to wake up two people that are sound asleep and they're going to see me standing over their bed and be startled wondering what am I doing here? So what happens? So, I kept it took a minute or two and then Brian woke up and he immediately was like startled and was like, "Jennifer, what's going on? What are you doing?" And then I believe I tried the best I could to say what it what was going on. I think I said, "We found John." You don't need to describe again, but I want to know um their reaction and your interaction with your sister and Brian Albert. Uh they woke up startled and confused. Did you have a conversation with them? Yes. How long was that conversation? Uh, brief. They got up, got dressed, I spoke to them. And where did you go and where did they go? Um, then we went, we all three of us went down the stairs. The upstairs to the downstairs. Upstairs to downstairs. Yes. And upstairs is the second level. Is downstairs the first level? Yes. As you come down the stairs, can you see the front door? Yes. Is there anybody in the house at that point? I saw uh Officer Lank in the house. Yes. Do you know if he had been invited in? I have no idea. When you came down the stairs and saw Officer Lank, where was your sister and Brian Albert? Uh, they were walking with me down the stairs. Did you see whether or not the officer spoke with your sister and your brother? He did. I'm sorry. He did. He did. Yes. Were you there during that conversation? No. How long was that conversation? Do you know? Not sure. Where did you go when the officer was speaking to your sister and your brother-in-law inside their home? I was standing at the front doorway and then my husband Matt had just arrived. What happened next? Um uh I started talking to Matt and almost immediately officer Lang came, got Matt and asked if he could talk to him outside. Okay. At this point I want to go back and show you some video. Have you seen video in this case before? Yes. I'd like to ask the court's permission to display exhibit 4 and I would like to walk through some of the video. Okay, Miss Gilman, if you kindly put on exhibit 4. Like to start at 60957. Miss Gilman, if you can take us to the arrival at Fairview. Can you stop there, please? M. McCabe, do you recognize this scene? Yes. Is that that morning? Yes. The car directly in front of this dash cam. Do you know whose vehicle that is? Carrie Roberts. On the left, we see somebody with a blue Parker or jacket. Do you know who that is? I believe that's me. Can you continue to play, please? Does he have front? Huh? Can you stop there, please? Does that fairly depict your first interaction with law enforcement? Yes. Do you see the flag pole in that video? Yes. And is that the area where you found John? Yes. I'd like to move forward in the video if we can move forward to 61445 please. Could you stop there? Can you identify people on that video from right to left if you can? I don't know the officer. Um, that's myself I believe behind me. That's Miss Reed. And this is about Let me get the time correctly. Pardon me. 61447. And do you know where John is at this point? Are they lifting him to the left? Okay. Could you continue, please, Melman? Could you start there? The person all the way to the left near the flag pole. Do you know who that is? I believe Carrie Roberts. And is that the area where John was found? Yes. And that's at 6:15 a.m. If you don't know, that's okay. Do you know what Miss Roberts was doing at 6:15 a.m.? My guess is I don't want you to guess. Just a few. I don't know. Okay. Now, you're over to the right. Is that you? Uh, yes. Okay. Continue, please. Is that Carrie on the left? Yes. Stop, please. On the right, do you see yourself? Yes. And which person are you? I'm the one um next to the one with the fluorescent yellow. Is your back to us? Yes. To the right in yellow. Do you know who that is? I don't. Continue, please. Continue. Stop, please. Do you see the defendant move from the right to the left? Yes. Do you see the yellow jacket? Yes. Do you know whether or not that's the woman first responder? I believe so. Yes. Do you know why the officer moved the defendant over to from right to left? I don't. Okay, continue. Please stop. At that part part, is there a conversation between the defendant and the first responder? Yes. Are you listening? Yes. Continue. Stop. Do you see the officer that was with you in the group? Yes. Do you see him now turned away from the group speaking to somebody else? I do. Continue, please. Thank you. If you could move ahead to 619, please is that you, Miss McCabe and M. Roberts? Yes. Is that Miss Roberts? Yes. Stop for a moment. Do you know at which point you went to the officer's car and sat in the back with Miss Reed? I believe it's um right after this. Can you continue, please? Is that Miss Roberts? Yes. Okay. Stop, please. Was it before or after that moment that you sat with the defendant and Miss Roberts stood outside the car and you prayed? I'm not what I'm not exactly sure from that video. That's fine. If we could move forward to 62340, please At this time, are you still with the defendant behind this car in some spot? Yes, I am. Is it during this time? 623 and 624. You tried to make those searches at the defendant's request. Yes. M. Gilman, if you can move forward to 62615. Pause. Please, Mrs. McCabe, did you see anybody returning to Miss Robert's car in that area? Yes. And And who did you see? I saw myself and I'm standing um outside of the car speaking to Officer Lank. I saw Carrie go up and near her car. I'm not sure if she went into it. And I saw um someone walk Miss Reed into the car. Is it around this time you have a conversation with Mr. Len? Yes. And what does he tell you again around this time? Um, he's at this point, I think, asking me questions about what had happened. And then soon after, he asks me to go um into my sister's house. M. Gilman, if you can fast forward to 6:30, 4:15, please. Stop, please. You described that the house had no lights on. Is that a fair depiction of the of the view? Yes. Do you see a figure walking up the driveway? I not on this pause clip, but I did see it. Yes. Um, let's play it and see if you can identify. Yes, I can see myself walking up. Where are you now? I'm walking up the uh path to go up to the stairs. Stairs into the house. And this is at the request of Officer Lank. Yes. And you described for us you went in and woke up your sister and brother-in-law. Yes. Could we move forward to 639, please? Scott, and do you see something happen with the house at that point? Yes. Okay. And what happens? Uh, light went on. I'll note it's 63908. Thank you, Miss Gilman. After first responders took John and you had gone in your sister's house, what did you do next? Um, next I after Miss um, Officer Lang spoke to my husband, Carrie Roberts, um, her and I had a conversation, she um, was going to go pick up um, John's parents in Brainree. At first, I had told her I would go with her. Uh but then officer Len said that I needed to one of us had to stay um at Fair View um to speak to the uh I believe it was the state troopers that would be coming. Did you stay at Fair View? I did. Yes. What was your mental state at that point? Um again I was in shock. The best way I can describe it is the feeling of I'm present and everything's going on around me and I'm just trying to process and make sense of everything. Did you speak to your sister about what happened? Yes. Did you speak to your brother-in-law about what happened? Yes. And were they giving you any comfort or support? Yes, they were being very comforting and supportive. As you were waiting at Fairview, did anybody else come to the house? Uh, when my husband Matt had arrived. Um, a little while later, Julie Albert had arrived. She was dropping something off and then Brian um senior called her in. Is Julie Albert the wife of Chris Albert? Yes, she is. And Brian Albert and Chris Albert are brothers, correct? When she arrived, did you talk to her? Yes. Were you in a group? Were you talking to people privately? No, we were all sitting around the kitchen table. And why were you talking to everybody? We were trying to figure out what had happened. They were trying to be supportive, trying to help me. What was your move? Um, I was ext uh extremely concerned. I was calling Carrie um trying to get updates um about John. I was worried about John, his family, about Kaye. At that point, did you know whether John was going to live? I had a very strong I I think deep down I knew that John was gone. Um but you know there's until you hear it, I think there was that little bit of hope maybe. Did you uh speak to anybody but Carrie who was not at the home that morning? I believe I spoke uh yeah, Miss Reed. You had a conversation? Yes. Um I spoke to her when she was in the ambulance. Did you speak to her again later that day? No, I think I texted her asking her for Car's number because I didn't have it. Did you hear back? No. Did you ever speak to Miss Reed again? No, I've never spoken to her again. When you were trying to get information from Kerry and you were in Fair View, did anybody else other than the people you've described arrive at Fair View? Uh Chris Albert O'Brien Higgins showed up and Chris Albert. Did you know Brian Higgins? I I knew him as a friend of Brian's. Did you see him at the waterfall that night before? Yes, I did. And after you arrived at Fairview that night after leaving the waterfall, was Brian Higgins one of the people there? Yes. And did you talk about what had happened in front of Brian Higgins as well? Yes. Was there a group discussion? I wouldn't say discussion. I would just say like for instance, someone would ask me a question because everybody just this didn't make sense to anybody. Um, no one could knew what had happened. Agreed. So, just move on. And And so, was there a lot of questions about what you saw and heard? Yes. Um, you mentioned earlier that you felt like you were in a state of shock. Did you feel like you were still in that state or were things changing mentally? Little by little as I sat there, I started proc like things started coming back to me that were that had been said to me earlier. Did something significant come back to you about what happened earlier? What you heard? Yes. And what does that um when Miss Reed stated to um to myself and the female? I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. And did anything else over the course of that morning come back to you about that moment? Um throughout when I was still at Fair View or throughout the day? Still at Fairview. I believe that was maybe the main thing. I I can't be sure what time what memories came back. When you remembered the defendant's statements to the first responder, did you decide to do something with that information? Yes. Um, Officer Lang had said if I, you know, remembered anything or needed anything before the state, you know, the next the state police came to give him a call. And did you? Um, I did. Yes. And you knew officer Lank? I did. Yes. Were you comfortable calling him? Yes, I was. Um, did you tell him the information that you had remembered? Um, I just asked him to come back to fe. Did he? He did. Yes. When he came back, did you speak to him? Yes, I did. Were you with the group or were you alone? Uh, no. I was with the group. And did you tell him what you had remembered? I did. Yes. How long did you stay at Fair View for? I believe somewhere between 11 11:30. I can't I I'm being approximate with my times. Um, Officer Proctor called me from the state police. Do you know how he got your number? No. Did you have a discussion with him? He said he would like to come by and question me. And um I'm not sure if he said at your house or if I said I need to go home because I had four kids at home that was still sleeping. And you know I was start I knew that I had to go home to them and eventually break this you know news to them and comfort them and I knew that was going to be a whole another situation to deal with. Did you speak to him on the phone before you went home or after? A quick phone call. I'll see you at my house. Okay. At that point, did you share any information with him? No, not on the phone. Did you return home? I did. Yes. Do you remember about what time that was? I'm going to say 11:30 or after approximate. General. General. Yeah. When you got back home, did you um have a meeting or speak with Mr. Proctor. I did. Yes. Was it a phone call or an inperson conversation? Um he came into my house with um Officer Buchanan. Okay. Him and Trooper Buchanan came in. Yes. Was there anybody else at your home? Uh my husband was home and my brother-in-law Brian Albert came over. Did you speak to them? Yes. Did you tell them any additional information at that point? The troopers or the troopers? Um yes. I I know I had said what Karen had said to me and then she had said I hit him. Could I have hit him? Um I told them how she showed up at my house. I just basically gave them the events of that morning. At that point, did you mention anything about the defendant's broken tail light? At that conversation, no. Did they leave? They did leave. Yes. At some point, did they reach out to you again or did you reach out to them? At some point, I had another conversation with them a few hours later. I'm not I'm not sure if they called me or if I called them. Do you know what generally the content of that conversation was? Yes, I had remembered that Karen had told me um about her tail light. Um, as you're processing that morning, are you trying to think and recreate the event or you trying to put it out of your mind? I couldn't get it out of my mind. While you were at home, did you receive any updates from anybody, Carrie Roberts or anybody about John? Yes. Um, when I was still at the Alberts, Carrie had given me word that um, you know, John had passed. Um then once I got home I know um different friends who was starting to hear without saying the question without content were you receiving contacts calls text messages from other people? Yes. And were you reaching back out to other people some? Yes. At some point did you go over to Meadows Road on Sunday? I did. Yes. Was Sunday the next day? Yes, it was. Why did you go over to Meadows? Carrie and I went over with my daughter and her daughter to see the family and to offer support and our sympathy. You said you and Carrie. How did you get there? Carrie picked me up. Prior to that evening, you and Carrie you described weren't friends or familiar? Correct. Were things changing? Yes. Rapidly. When she picked you up, who else did she pick up with you? uh my daughter who was Kayle's friend. And was anybody else were any of Miss Robert's family in the car? Yes, her daughter was in the car as well. So, it was you, Miss Roberts, and your two daughters? Yes. You said you went to Meadows. Why did you go there? Um to offer our condolences, sympathy, support to be with the family. I I mean, I love them. Were they staying at Meadows? They were at Meadows. Yes. When you went there that next day, can you describe the traffic and the people that were there? There was a house full of family, friends, co-workers, um, loved ones, the I mean the car repair man, like anyone and everyone. Did you ever see the defendant? No. While you're at the house, did you have a chance to speak to Miss O'Keefe? Uh, yes I did. At some point that day, did you leave the house? Yes. Who did you leave with? Carrie and uh my daughter stayed to be with Kaye and we left with her daughter. Where did you go? Um, we were heading home, but then we ended up dropping off um her daughter at her friend's house. Now, who's her daughter? Um, don't give me a name. Carrie's daughter. Car's daughter. Yes. And was Car's daughter friends with any of the Lanks? Yes, Car's daughter is good friends with Mike's Lank's daughter. Um, when Ms. Roberts drove over to Mr. and Mrs. Lang's house, did you meet anybody? Yes. Um, the do her daughter, Carrie's daughter went in the house and Mrs. Lank came out. Her and Carrie are very good friends, so she came out to offer support and condolences. Was it still cold outside? Yes, it was freezing. When she was offering her support, was she inside or outside of the car? She jumped into the back seat. During that time you spent with uh Officer Lang's wife, did you ever go into the house? I have a faint memory. I think I went in and used the bathroom at one point. Okay. Um when you having the conversation with Mr. Lang's wife, um were you talking about what had happened? Yes, she was Carrie was just explaining the morning, the phone calls, the scene, things like that. Okay. Were you trying to get any type of inside information or um push the investigation in any particular direction? No, I didn't speak much. It was mostly Carrie and Trish. And Trish was just being a supportive friend to Carrie. At some point, did you get together with Miss uh Roberts and try to memorialize what you had saw or thought that morning? Yes. Why did you do that? Uh Peg had asked Carrie to do a timeline. So Carrie um came over and we were sitting down talking about it and so my sister was there and she said that she would jot it down for us. And so when you got together, it was at the request of Mrs. O'Keefe. Yes. When she made that request that you asked you to do that, did you question why? No, I just she wanted us to do it, so I did it. Why? Um I um I she wanted us to remember and try to jot down everything we remembered so we wouldn't forget. So I'm going to sustain this. is disregarded. Um, did you speak to officers further in the future? Yes. Can you count how many times you spoke with police of the interviews you had? There were a lot or a good amount I should say. At some point, did any of the police officers ask if they could take your phone and copy everything on it? Yes. Did you have any hesitation about that? Ask it differently. Um, were you cooperative? Yes. Why? I wanted to help in any way I could. May I approach? Yes. Gave you a piece of paper. Do you recognize that? Yes, I do. And what is it? That's my signature. You know what that document is? Yes. It's the consent form that I signed from my phone. I can use this as an exhibit. Objection. Yes. I have no I have no objection to the identification of it. Okay. See the temple. Thank you. After that day when you met with Miss Roberts um and you try to memorialize your memory about what happened um after that date have you discussed what happened that morning with other people? Yes. And have you discussed it um with police over time? Yes. I have no further questions at this time. Good morning, Miss McCabe. Good morning. Um, when was the last time you spoke with Carrie Roberts before your testimony today? Um, she called me last night. What did y'all discuss? She asked if my daughters were going to be staying home from school today cuz her daughter would possibly join them. Did you discuss anything having to do with your testimony? Not my testimony. No. Did you discuss anything in that conversation with her prior testimony? No. Are you aware that she testified last week? Yes. Did you discuss anything after that after she testified with her about her testimony? No. Uh did you We know that through her testimony that you had a conversation with her the morning that she testified. Yes. Did you discuss what you anticipated to be her testimony before in that conversation before she testified? No. Have you and Miss Roberts ever discussed anything about either one of your testimonies? uh either in the last proceeding or in anticipation of this proceeding. Now, so for the entirety of the last year, even though you both went through a proceeding last year where you both testified under oath and it was highly highly publicized, neither one of you, your good friend Carrie Roberts and you have ever discussed either of your testimonies between that time and this time. No, we've discussed the case and we've discussed what happened that moment, the moments of the morning, but we have not discussed testimony. Okay. So, let's break that down for a second. I'm talking about because the the timing matters. I'm just asking at this point, if you'll bear with me, just the year from last year at at a at a different proceeding to this year, you have discussed this case. Yes. With Miss Roberts many times. Yes. And you've discussed the specifics of her memory which would be reflected in her testimony. Correct. We talked about what happened that morning. So you were talking about what she remembers happening that morning. Correct. No, what happened that morning? Okay. So, not to put too fine a point on it, Miss McCabe, but if you ask me what I had for dinner last night, it's my memory of what I had for dinner last night. Would you agree with that? I sustained. Did you talk about her p uh her perception of what happened that morning during the the last year? We've talked about what has happened. Yes. Okay. So, I'm trying to break it down between you and Miss Roberts. You've discussed her perceptions and her memory of what happened as well as and separate and apart from your memory and your perceptions. Correct. Correct. So there have been circumstances in which you and Miss Roberts have compared by definition what she remembers versus what you remember. Correct? I wouldn't say compare. Now let's move to the Well, what would you say in terms of what you've discussed and why? I would say that we've both talked about what we've discussed, but it wasn't like a comparison. We weren't comparing anything. You've talked about what you discussed. What does that mean? talked about your testimony. No, we've I we've discussed um what happened to that moment, right? And in those moments, so you know, oh, when I got a phone call and that's my story, you know, that's my I got a phone call in the morning. And then Carrie can say, yeah, I got a phone call as well. As you said, that's your story. Correct. Not my story. It's the truth. Okay. So, for instance, when you got a phone call at 4:53 in the morning, Carrie Roberts wasn't there. Correct. Correct. But you've discussed that with her. Correct. And you've told her what your perception of that your memory of that phone call was, even though she was not recipient to and did not witness that phone call. Correct. I've told her about the phone call. Correct. As well as many other details that she was not privy to personally. Correct. Correct. Conversations that you've had. For instance, conversations that you claim you've had with Miss Reed. Correct. Correct. And you've told her what your perception is of those conversations or your memory was or is of those conversations with Miss Reed. Correct. Which conversations with Miss Reed? Any conversations? Just anything that she wasn't privy to. You've discussed that with her. Some things. Yes. Absolutely. And and conversely, Miss McCabe, obviously, she's also discussed certain perceptions and memories that she has about this case, the facts of this this case as she recalls them that you were not necessarily privy to. Correct. Yes. Things that may have taken place outside your presence. Correct. Correct. And that you've talked about thing. I'm sorry. She's talked to you about things. Now, I'm getting myself confused. Y'all have talked about things that were outside of her perception and outside of your perception and you've shared those with each other. We've shared our experiences. Um, we've become very close. We've both lived through a traumatic experience. How many times would you say you and Miss Roberts have discussed your individual perceptions of what you remember happening on the 28th or the 29th of January 2022? How many times? It would be hard to put a number on that. We talk about it's hard. We are we're bonded. We talk about the trauma that we relive every day. Karen called us for help and we both answered the phone and and that bonding is the glue that holds you two together. Is this case correct? Yes. So that probably by definition is the foundation of many many many of your conversations. Would you agree? We've grown into friends where we talk about many other things besides the case. Sure. The movie you saw last weekend and what the kids are doing next week. Yes. And Yes, absolutely. We talk many different things just like girlfriends do. I'm just I'm just concerned with and asking you about the subject matter of this case and the details and the facts of this case. You two have probably talked hundreds of times. That's fair to say. About your individual perceptions, your respective perceptions of this case. Correct. This happened three years ago and we've talked about it time and time again. This case has traumatized us. So, it's a huge part of our lives. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't give anything. Um, I believe it just I mean, okay. Traumatized our lives. Okay. Uh it would be impossible for you two to have had so many conversations about your respective perceptions of the details of that day without that influencing the other person. Correct. You've somehow been influenced by Miss Roberts's perceptions and her her memories. Correct. I don't think I would say influenced. Would you say that she's been influenced by your perceptions and your memories? Action. Would you say that, Miss McCabe? No, I wouldn't. Next question. How many times have you met um with anybody from the DA's office, and I'm just going to limit the time frame right now. in anticipation of your appearance in this trial yesterday and today. I'd say roughly four or five. Can you give me a a time frame when those four or five meetings were? I don't have dates. Um I do remember at one point I met with Mr. Brennan. He was new to the case. So I went in and he introduced himself. How long ago was that? I weeks or months? Maybe. I can't give you a time frame. I'm sorry. Do you think it was last summer? No. Do you think it was No, it was more recent. Okay. Yeah. Wasn't in the fall of last year. No, it was in 2025 sometime, I believe. So, yes. You think it might have been February, January? Again, I I can't give you an exact. I'm sorry. All right. Uh, I want to talk about the the time frames of those conversations. Then I'll ask you a little bit more about those conversations. So that was the first meeting that you had was with Mr. Brennan in anticipation of your testimony. What were the subsequent four meetings or so that you've had with whom? And approximately what time? Okay. So another meeting um with Mr. Brennan. Are you looking for who was sure there who else was there? I mean can I give you a general answer? I didn't write down like every meeting who was there but generally. Okay. Was Mr. Lai there? Um uh during one or two of the meetings he was. Yes. Was Miss Mclofflin there? Yes. Was there anybody else from the DA's office there? Um the officer uh or trooper Tully was there at one. Um trooper Buchanan was there at one. Um the witness advocates were there and again give or take the the particular meeting. Those are two meetings that you've talked about with Mr. Brennan and others. Uh, what about the third meeting? No, I'm sorry. I was lumping a few of them together. Sure, understood. I apologize. Um, how many meetings would you have? Let's just start there. How many meetings have you had with Mr. Brennan and either staff or colleagues? Uh, so after the first initial meeting, I would say, again, I didn't write them down. Off the top of my head, I can think of two or three more after that. Okay. Excuse me. First initial one. So, that's either four or five meetings with Mr. Brennan and some combination of his colleagues uh Mr. Lai, Miss Mclofflin perhaps, Mr. Nelson perhaps, the the other employee of the DA's office and trooper troopers Buchanan and trooper Tully. Correct. Were you asked questions about your at any of these meetings? I'm just going to lump them all together. These five meetings, by the way, when was the most recent? Last night I had a Zoom call um in regards I think the court asked them to Yes. I'm gonna stop you right there. I'm gonna ask a different question and if you don't mind I'm just going to lead you through this question. Okay. You had a conversation last night. I'm not interested in that particular conversation. That was for a very specific purpose. I'm asking you about everything leading up to but not including last night's conversation. Okay. Okay. So, let's just leave that one out. Uh you've had I think you mentioned either four or five other meetings with Mr. Brennan and some combination of his colleagues andor law enforcement. Yeah. And I might have in the five included that one from last night. Okay, fair enough. Um were you asked questions in those we're just going to call them four four meetings. Were you asked questions during those four meetings about your testimony at the first proceeding last year? Um I reviewed my um I did review some of my um testimony. Yes. In in what format? The paper transcript or uh No, we just watched a little bit of it. Do you watch your direct examination? Um a little bit. Yes. Did you watch your cross- examination? A little. Yes. Who cross-examined you? You did. That was me. Yes. And did you watch the redirect or any part of it? No. Uh did you watch any part of the the any subsequent version of recross or uh additional questions that you were asked? I don't believe so. No. Was there a specific area that Mr. Brennan asked you to look at uh and review in terms of your direct or your cross- examination? No. Uh did you watch the entirety of the direct examination and the entirety of the cross- examination? I do not believe so. No. Were you questioned by Mr. Brennan following your review of that uh that direct and cross-examination? No. So, he didn't ask you any questions about any of your answers? Um, I don't we would uh we he showed me a dash cam and would ask me to point out who's this, who's that, waterfall video, who's is this you, is this somebody? Those were the type of questions that he asked me. What about um what about any discussion about your demeanor and how you performed uh in the last proceeding? Objection. sustain. I'll ask it a different way. What about your demeanor? I'm using a probably a poor word. Perform how you um came across your demeanor in the last proceeding. Objection. Sustain. Did you discuss changing your demeanor at in any way, shape, form or fashion from the last trial to I'm sorry, the last proceeding to this trial. My mistake. From the last proceeding to this trial, was your demeanor ever discussed? No. I was just told to slow down, answer the question and um you know answer it to the best of my memory. Was there any discussion about talking about your background for instance your your family and your children and being a sports mom as you talked about in your direct examination? No, I believe I did that in the previous one as well. Was there any discussion about crafting your testimony in any way uh to suggest a a softer approach? No. Uh, was there any discussion about how to develop your testimony uh, from beginning to end? I object. Sustained. Did Mr. Brennan ask you uh, about or let me ask it a different way. Did Mr. Brennan take you through a series of questions, for instance, as a uh, almost a a test run of questions that you might be asked either on direct examination or cross-examination? No. Did you practice your testimony with any member of the DA's office? No. Were there any uh sessions where you sat and was subjected to u a cross-examination like a a fake cross-examination or a fake direct examination? No. Anything like that? No. What were the the things that stand out in your mind? You said you had at least four meetings. How long was each meeting by the way? ish. Uh the first meeting I think was fairly quick. Um it was just the introduction. Um 30 minutes, less than 30 minutes. Well, I I don't want to give a time cuz I'm not sure. Okay. But it was fairly quick. Yes. Okay. What about the second meeting? Uh again, I don't know specific meetings, but I can tell you that there was a longer one where I did watch some dash cam video. um look at different pictures, things like that. Um what kind of pictures did you look at? Um other than the dash cam video, uh the pictures of John's house. Okay. The same photos that we saw today. Yes. Uh how long in total would you say all of those meetings were is taking them all together? I really can't give you a I really can't give you an estimate. I think the first one was fairly quick. The second one, you know, one of them was a little bit longer, maybe a couple hours. Okay. Um, then the third one, was that also a couple hours or was that was that one fairly quick? That was fairly quick. Yes. So fair to say between 2, three, four hours uh total meeting times. Again, I'd have to probably go back and look at the date and the time. I really can't give you a specific amount of time. I I apologize. Did uh Trooper Tully or Trooper Buchanan ask you any questions during the course of any of these meetings um regarding the case? No. But we did briefly talk about how my kids were, how their kids were. But they didn't ask you any questions about your testimony, about your ca about the case, about your memories, about specific facts. I do not believe so. Now during any of these meetings, was anybody taking notes? Miss Mclofflin, Mr. Lai, Mr. run in any of the troopers? No, I don't believe so. So, there was several hours worth of meetings with you and nobody nobody scribed any notes that you saw? None that I saw? No. And these meetings were not recorded? I do not believe so. No. Miss McCabe, I'm I'm going to ask you a series of questions about your family. Uh because I just want to make sure it's crystal clear. Who's who? You're married to Matt McCabe, correct? Yes. Your sister is Nicole Albert. Yes. Nicole is married to Brian Albert. Yes. It was Brian Albert's home that you were at 34 Fair View uh that you arrived at where John's body was found. Correct. Yes. the same home where that late night gathering was on January 28th going into the morning of the 29th. Correct. Yes. Would you consider yourself to be close with your sister Nicole and Brian? Yes, very close. Your families are It's not just you and Nicole. Your whole families are close. Correct. Yes, we have a very close family. How long have you known Brian Albert? Um, since I was in kindergarten. You consider him even though he is not bloodreated to you, you consider him family? Yes. In addition to Brian and Nicole Albert, you're also very close with Chris and Julie Albert, correct? Yes. Just to be clear, and I'm going to do this slowly. Okay. Brian Albert's younger brother is Chris Albert. Correct. Yes. Chris Albert is married to Julie Albert. Yes. You consider Chris and Julie family even though there may not be a blood relation as well. Correct. Yes. Chris Albert is a Canton Select Board member. Is that right? Now he is. Yes. And the Canton that's in Canton. I did I said select board mitten. Did I mention Canton select board member? It is in Canton. Yes. All right. Obviously it's in Canton. The Canton Police Department reports to the select board. Correct. I'm not aware. You're not aware of that that echelon? No. Okay. Um, you're aware that Brian Albert, your friend of I'm not going to say how many years, but since kindergarten, uh, is a or was a Boston police officer. Yes. He had been a lifetime law enforcement officer for some 30 years before he retired recently. Correct. Yes. Um, he's a trained first responder, obviously. Yes. Uh, Brian Albert and Chris Albert have another brother named Kevin Albert, correct? Yes. Kevin Albert is a detective with a police department. Correct. Yes. I believe that's his title. I'm not% Which police department is Kevin Albert associated with? Canton. And you've grown up in Canton your whole life, you indicated. Yes. Your entire family has grown up in Canton, correct? Yes. And you, Miss McCabe, have three sisters. Nicole, we've talked about. You also have a sister named Shelley. Is that right? Michelle. Yes. Michelle. Mhm. And Denise, who you mentioned in your direct examination? Yes. Uh Nicole is also known by nickname. Is that right? Yes. What is Nicole's nickname within the family? Coco. Does Shel also have a nickn Well, I guess Shel is the shortened name for Michelle, correct? Yes. What about Denise? Um, she's DD. DD. Yeah. Like D E E D E E. Your father lives close by in a neighboring town, correct? Yes. Uh, don't tell me the town, but it's relatively close to Canton. 20 minutes. Yes. Okay. His name is Tom Weekes. Yes. There are I'm not going to go through all of them right now because the family tree is getting large, but there are children, cousins, second cousins, nephews, aunts, uncles. There's a a combination of familial relations within that set of folks that I've just talked about, Chris and Brian and Nicole and you and Matt and the the folks that we've just talked about. Yes. That family, that large family celebrates holidays together. I'm guessing we don't typically, you know, celebrate with Kevin and Chris, but my family does. Yes. Along with Brian, Albert, and Nicole. Yes, of course. Uh birthdays are celebrated within that family. Yes. Uh go on vacations together, I'm guessing. Yes. Gatherings like the the one on the 28th. Yes. Special events. Yes. Spend weekends together. Yes. Yes. You mentioned a lot of sporting events. There's a lot of sporting events that y'all go to together. Yes. Um, so it is very very easy to see that it's an extremely close-knit family. Yes. And naturally you're very protective of your family as anybody would be. Yes. I love my family. You also said that you knew and your words liked Karen Reed, my client on the 28th of January 2022. Correct. Yes. But she very much is not family. Correct. Correct. She certainly was not as important to you as your actual family, the Alberts, the McCabes, uh the folks associated with them. Is that right? Yes. On January 28th, 2022, um members of the the Albert family and the McCabe family all went to a bar together, had drinks together. that night. The waterfall, we've heard a little bit about that. Correct. Correct. Ultimately, you went back to your sister's house for the afterparty that we've heard so much about. That was at Brian Albert's house. Is that right? Yes. You've been interviewed. I think you indicated multiple times. You didn't even give a number of how many times you've been interviewed by police in this case. Is that right? Yes. Your family is connected to people at Boston Police Department. We've just talked about that. Brian Albert, is that right? Well, Brian's was a Boston police officer, right? So, when I say connected, there is some familial or family or friendly connection to that police agency, Boston Police Department. It'd be Brian Albert in this case. Correct. The objection sustained. There's also a connection to the Massachusetts State Police through your family. Is that right? Objection. So, define connection. Julie and Chris Albert are very, very close to you. I'm close with Julie and Chris. Yes. Um, you're aware that Michael Proctor's sister Courtney is basically best friends with Julie? No, I'm not aware of that. She's best friends with um Julie's sister, Jillian. Okay. So Courtney is best friends with Jillian who sisters to Julie who's married to Chris who's an Albert who's the little brother of Brian Albert. Yes. Okay. Um and Canton Police Department. There's also some connections there as well. Kevin Albert being the most obvious of them. Objection. You know I'm going to allow them. Do you have a connection with the Canton Police Department? Not with the department but with Kevin Albert. Right. Who's a member of the department? Yes. but my relationships with him. Understood. Um, you've indicated that you've been interviewed by law enforcement agents uh associated with Massachusetts State uh I'm sorry with Canton Police Department. That'd be Officer Lank. Yes. Can Can I stop you for a second and see, please? Sure. We'll see you in about 20 minutes. Please rise for the jury. Jurors, right this way. Please with your notebook. Hey there, Karen Reed, trial watchers. You know what? A lot of the trials we cover remind me of that the world is unfortunately very unpredictable. And I'll tell you what, having a great lawyer matters so much. That is where a great partner and sponsor Morgan and Morgan comes in. This is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? Because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case, you know, isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. That's it. It can all be done on your phone. So, if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com/lc live by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. Hey there, Karen Reed, trial watchers. You know what? A lot of the trials we cover remind me of that the world is unfortunately very unpredictable. And I'll tell you what, having a great lawyer matters so much. That is where a great partner and sponsor, Morgan and Morgan, comes in. This is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case, you know, isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. That's it. It can all be done on your phone. So, if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com/lcive by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. Sure. Council sidebar, please. Yes, please. Oh, these Thank you for your patience. Sometimes there are matters that we need to address. Um, and that's what happened here. So, we appreciate your patience. Mr. Jackson, could we please have Miss McCabe back in here? All right, Mr. Jackson, go right ahead. Thank you, your honor. When last we left off, we were talking a little bit about some of the familial connections that your family has with certain law enforcement agencies. We talked about uh Boston Police Department, obviously, Brian Albert. Uh, we talked a little bit about Massachusetts State Police and knowing friends of friends uh with regard to Chris and Julie. Correct. Yes. Knowing friends of friends of Chris and Julie. Friends of friends of friends of Chris and Julie. Is that your relationship with who? I'd asked you about I'll ask a different question. Okay. A little bit a little bit vague. Courtney Proctor is friends with Julie's sister. Yes. And obviously knows Courtney also knows Julie and Chris. Correct. Sustained. And there's also a connection to Canton Police Department through Kevin Albert. Is that right? Exactly. Can you answer that? Is there a connection? Do you have a connection with the Canton Police Department through Kevin Albert? Not with the police department, but Kevin Albert is Brian Albert's brother, right? And Kevin works for whom? The Canton Police. Thank you. Uh, so you've been interviewed many times by different law enforcement agencies, be they Massachusetts State Police, Canton Police, or otherwise, correct? Yes. Okay. Um, those interviews have not not just been over the period of weeks. It's been over the period of weeks and months and even years since this occurred. Correct. Yes. You were contacted by another law enforcement agency that was not Massachusetts State Police and not Canton Police Department at one point in April of 2023. Do you remember that? Yes. I want to talk for a second about that uh series of interview or that interview. Um you were contacted at your residence by these uh members of this law enforcement agency. Correct. Yes. All right. Later that same day, you did sit down with those same law enforcement officers uh for a formal interview. On that on that same day that you were contacted by them, they also went into your home and actually interviewed you. Correct. Yes, it was brief. All right. Um those law enforcement officers identified themselves as being associated with an agency that is not Massachusetts State Police. You understood that? Yes. And you understood that they were not involved with Kenton Police Department either. Correct. Correct. completely separate agency. Is that right? Yes. During the course of that interview, those officers informed you very specifically, Miss McCabe, that it is a crime to lie to them even during an interview. Correct? Yes. Um, those law enforcement officers informed you that they were investigating certain circumstances attendant to John O'Keefe's death. Correct. They were very vague on what they were. I don't know what they were investigating, but you did understand that it was having something to do with your involvement um at 34 Fair View on January 28th, 29th, 2022. As as a witness or otherwise, objective sustained as to certain terminologies. Sure. Let me see if I can rephrase that. Miss McCabe, you were aware of the subject matter of their interview, right? They weren't interviewing about a car you bought last year. Correct. Correct. They were interviewing you about basically about what you're testifying to here. Correct. When I first spoke with them, the conversation was pretty vague. But the subject matter vague or or spec or specific was about this subject matter. Yes. Okay. Fair enough. They first contacted you telephonically, called you on the phone. Is that right? Uh, actually they walked up to my car. They walked up to your car. Yes. Okay. That was the very first introduction. Correct. Yes. At that point, they had not identified themselves. Correct. They didn't know. All right. And at that point, you told them that you were not Jennifer McCabe. They asked you who you were. You said, "I'm Nicole." I thought they were like selling something. So, I was like, "Oh, no. I'm not the homeowner. Fair enough. Fair enough. Uh, however, after they said sorry, after you said I'm not Jennifer McCabe, you walked into the house, they then called you on the phone. Yes. They were still sitting outside your house. I don't know where they were, but they did call me. They were close by. I'm not aware. Well, the call came almost immediately after you walked back in the house. Correct. I'm not sure how much time had passed. Give me an idea. It was It wasn't an hour. It was No, it was soon after. I'm just not sure. I can't tell you where they were located. I'm sorry. They told you that they would at at that point they identified themselves as being law enforcement agents. Correct. When they called me. Yes. And they told you at that time that they were not with Canton. You knew at least they were not with Canton Police Department. They were not troopers with the Massachusetts State Police. Correct. Yes. Okay. And they told you that they would like to have an interview with you. They'd like to have a sit down talk with you. Correct. Yes. You told them that you would be willing to submit to an interview, but you needed about 10 minutes to get ready. Correct. Yes. You ultimately did allow them uh into your home and you did sit down for a formal interview with them. Correct. Yes. Brief, but yes. And it was during that formal interview inside the home that it was explained to you that it would be a crime for you to lie to them on any material issue. Correct. Yes. During the course of your interview, your husband Matt McCabe came home. Is that right? Yes. As these law enforcement agents continued to question you, these law enforcement officers continued to question you, at some point, you informed them that you did not feel comfortable with any further questioning and you suspended the interview. Correct. Yes. Before leaving, however, those same law enforcement officers asked you if you had contacted anyone in those 10 minutes when you indicated, "I need 10 minutes to get ready." Between the time they called you and the time that they showed up and came inside your house, correct? Yes. You told them that you had contacted your husband, Matt McCabe. Yes. Which is why he came home, right? Yes. And you told them that you had called Carrie Roberts before they interviewed you. Correct. At that moment, I'm not 100% sure, but if you have it, I'll It seems like something I would do, but if you have it, could show me. Absolutely. Mhm. I may have just a moment, your honor. Okay. May I approach bridge? Yes. First, I'm going to ask you, Miss McCabe, if you recognized that as being a report of that in just general. Yes or no? It appears to be. Yes. May I uh approach the witness stand and stand by the witness stand for a couple of questions? Yes. Thank you. I can have that. Sure. I want to direct your attention if I may. And for courting council, page three of four. Starting with the second to the last full paragraph going into page five top full I'm sorry page four top full paragraph. Okay. If you could review those two paragraphs or even to yourselves to yourself and then look up and let me know when you're finished. May I approach your honor? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cab. Yes. Did reviewing those paragraphs refresh your recollection as to whether or not as to what you told those agents initially concern I'm sorry what you told those officers initially from that other law enforcement agency uh that about who you contacted in that 10-minute interval? Yes, I told them. And you told them that you you had contacted your husband Matt McCabe. Yes. And Carrie Roberts. Correct. I want to stick with that for just a quick second. One of the first calls you made after being contacted by this other law enforce these other law enforcement officers from a different agency. Uh, one of the first calls you made was to Carrie Roberts. Is that right? She was the first one. I That's what I'm asking. One of the first two calls you made your husband, right? Come home. There's law enforcement outside my door. I'm guessing is what you said. Correct. I don't remember my exact words now, but I did ask him to come home. Correct. And Carrie Roberts. Okay. Yes. You wanted to let Miss Roberts know that you had been contacted by certain officers from a different agency. Correct. I was curious if I was curious as if they had already been to her. That was my that was my next question. You also wanted to find out had the have these uh law enforcement officers from this different agency contacted her? Correct. Yes. Cuz typically if you enter our town, she's Miss McCabe. Yes or no? Oh, sorry. I was just trying to explain. I'm sorry. Is that why you contacted her to find out if in fact they had contacted her before you? Yes or not? Yes. And you also wanted to find out what she told them if she had been contacted by them. Correct. That was your motive in calling her. No. So, you just wanted to find out had she been contacted. But if she had said yes, you weren't going to say, "And what the hell did they say? What' they ask you? Well, I can't I most I can't say what I would have answered what I would have asked her, but I know I was calling to see if they had been there. Yes. That was your intent? I called to ask her if they had been there. Yes. So, that was your intent? Yes. Yes. Okay. Um, your motive in calling Carrie Roberts at that moment before your interview was to ensure that your story would line up with her story, Miss McCabe. Isn't that right? No, that is not. You wanted to find out if she had talked to these particular law enforcement officers and what she had told them so that your story could somehow align or it could inform how you responded to questions that they asked you. Isn't that true? That's not true. We both know what happened. We don't have to have a story. There is no story. There's what happened and that's it. So if that's true, Miss McCabe, you'd have no reason to call Carrie and ask her if she had been contacted by this law enforcement agent because it's just the truth. Correct. We're going through this whole experience together. We call each other about everything. That's nothing more than that. I'm sorry. Let her finish her answer. Go ahead, Miss McCabe. You can finish that. There's nothing more than me calling and saying, "Hey, did they come to your house?" That's what we did when the media showed up. when Miss Reed's private investigator showed up, we just give each other the heads up, hey, somebody's coming because we're just like normal moms. We're not used to this. And that's helpful in making sure that the stories she tells are consistent with the stories you tell to different law enforcement agencies. Correct. No, we are not telling stories. So, let her finish. You said no. What I said, no, we're not telling stories. We don't have to compare. And if in fact what we were telling him was just the truth, there'd be no reason for you to inquire about whose contact occur when there's no inquiring. It's like when you're a little when the ice cream truck was at the street next door and I'm saying, "Did the ice cream truck come?" It's really that simple. So you asked a question, an argumentative question and she responded in kind. Next question. You also testified in your direct examination, staying with Miss Roberts for just a second, about a timeline that you and Miss Roberts put together. Correct. Yes. That's another example of the two of you talking about your own perceptions and comparing and contrasting those perceptions and putting it down on paper. Correct? No. I Yes or no? It's a no. If you can I explain or no? I'm sure Mr. Bren will have follow-up questions. Okay. after you gave that law that um answer to those law enforcement officers uh at that separate law enforcement agency. They asked you, was there anyone else that you contacted in that 10-minute period before we got a chance to talk to you? And your answer was no. Correct. Correct. And that was a lie. Correct. It wasn't a lie. No. Was it true? I had Was it the truth or a lie? It wasn't a lie. Okay. So, it was the truth. You had not spoken to any other person between the time they contacted you telephonically. And you said, "I need 10 minutes." And then they came in the door. During that arc of time, you didn't talk to anybody else and or contact anybody else other than Matt McCabe, Carrie Roberts. Now you're testifying that was a true statement. I can't answer that yes or no. So pretty binary. Had you tal Well, let me ask you this. In point of fact, you did talk to other people. Did you contacted others in addition to Matt McCabe and Carrie Roberts? Correct. Yes or no? Yes, I did. Okay. So, when you said no to the answer, did you contact anyone other than Matt and Carrie? That would be by definition, Miss McKay, a lie. Correct. No, it's not a lie. Is there some shade of lie that I'm not aware of? It's the way you're asking the question. If I could explain, if I could explain, let me ask it will make more sense to you. The agents asked you, I'm going to go over this one more time, then I'm going to move on. The agents asked you, in fact, did you contact anyone between the time we called you and set up the interview and the 10 minutes before we walked in the door? She asked, they asked you that question. Correct. The objection sustained. Watch the choice of language. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I I I meant the law enforcement agencies. Uh that law enforcement agency, the members of that law enforcement agency contacted you. Mhm. Sorry. They asked you who you had contacted between the time they first telephoned you and walked in the door 10 minutes later. Correct. Correct. Okay. Data point number one. Data point number two. You told them Matt and Carrie. Correct. Correct. you would actually contact they they then asked you did you contact anyone else other than Matt and Carrie. Correct. Correct. And you said no. Is that correct? At that moment I said no. Yes. Correct. At that moment at that moment because they had just come in my house. Only one person can talk at a time. You said the word no. She was finishing her answer. Finish her answer. I had said no because I'm going to be I was in a situation where there two um officers from a different agent had come in were asking me questions or they had said can I come in and ask you questions at first I thought they were selling something then they identified themselves I just dropped my kids off at school going to be a completely honest I hadn't brushed my teeth I so I kind of made some phone calls this is So, next question. Mrs. Thank you, Miss McCabe. After you said no, that you hadn't contacted anybody else. Mhm. Those two law enforcement officers from that separate agency who had told you it was a crime to lie to them, they left. Correct. Yes. Subsequent to that, Mr. McCabe, your husband, objection. Sustaining. They left you their card so you could call them if need be. Correct. Yes, they did. And you in fact did call them back. Correct. Yes, I did. Without telling me the content of the conversation you had, did you have a conversation with Mr. McCabe? Objection. Sustain. Did you call them back and say, "I'm calling you back because my husband told me that I lied to you and I better clear that lie up." So, sustain jurors, remember I told you before that only answers to questions are evidence. Be mindful of that. Next. Yes. May I? Yes. Thank you, your honor. Uh, you ultimately called these officers back, correct? Yes. And you explained to them that you had been untruthful with them. Correct. I explained that I had forgotten to mention a couple people that I had reached out to. You had forgotten. That is that your testimony? Yes. You had forgotten. You remembered Matt and you remembered Carrie, but you had forgotten the others that you had just contacted maybe 30 minutes before. Yes. There were five people that you contacted, weren't there? I contacted Matt. Let's Let's go through them. I'm guessing yes or no. You know, I know four off the top of my head. Okay, let's go through them. Okay. You contacted your husband, correct? Yes. You contacted Carrie Roberts. Correct. Yes. You contacted Peggy O'Keefe. Correct. Yes. Then, Miss McCabe, you contacted the district attorney's office. Correct. My witness advocate. The district attorney's office. My witness advocate who works for the district attorney's office. Thank you, Miss McCabe. And you also left out that you contacted Brian Albert himself, correct? Yes. My brother-in-law. For some reason, your brother-in-law, who's the 30-year Boston police detective? Correct. Yes. And on whose lawn John O'Keeffe was found dead or dying? Objection. I'll allow that. Correct. Yes. For some reason, you did not want these officers to know that you had communicated specifically with Brian Albert, the homeowner, just before you talked to them. Correct? No. Incorrect. There was some reason that was important enough for you to lie about that even though you had been admonished that it's a crime to lie about that to those officers. Correct. Incorrect. I didn't lie to them. I had forgotten who I had called and all of a sudden you had an epiphany right after they walked out the door. Yes. Matt said, "Who have you spoken to?" Objection. I'm going to allow it. It's out and you're not to go any further. Mr. Jeff, Miss McCabe, I want to draw your attention to January 28th. You had gone out drinking with your family at the Waterfall Bar and Grill. Correct. I went with my husband and met my sister. Yes. And met your other met the other family. Correct. The other family members meaning Matt McCabe, Nicole, Chris, Julie, Caitlyn. Correct. Yes. And I think you mentioned Tristan was there as well. Yes. Um, you were later joined by Nick and Karina Kolith. Is that right? Yes. Ultimately, Brian Higgins showed up. Yes. And Brian Albert showed up. Yes. You previously indicated that Caitlyn's boyfriend Tristan left early for whatever reason. He had errands to run or had to get to bed early for some reason. Is that right? He left before us. Yes. So he didn't stay through the shank of the evening. Through the what? The shank of the evening. Through the through the course of the evening. Okay. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Uh, and ultimately at the waterfall, John O'Keeffe and Miss Reed showed up as well. Yes. You didn't see any tension at all between John O'Keefe and Karen that night, did you? No, I didn't. Um, they appeared to be getting along. Yeah. Yes. Sort of a normal couple having a nice evening out together. Yes. Neither John nor Karen Reed appeared drunk or inebriated out of sorts. No, I wouldn't categorize them as drunk or ineviated and not but again, I don't know what I mean what the definition of drunk is. Well, that's a fair statement. I'm not asking for their BAC, but they didn't appear to be stumbling around, falling all over themselves and sloppy drunk. Correct. No. Out of control? Nothing like that? Nope. Okay. Um, you did see Brian Higgins and Brian Albert at a at a high top table sort of together through the course of that evening. Correct. We were all kind of around like a long high top table and and John O'Keefe and as you look at the I'm going to use the perspective of the of the video that we've seen that that camera angle that we've seen. Uh John O'Keefe and Miss Reed were sort of further off in the corner, closer to the bar rather than to the tables. Correct. Along with the Colituses and those and and you as a matter of fact. Yes. At different times everyone was kind of moving around. I spent the majority of the time that Karen and John were there speaking with Karen. Did and that was sort of over toward the bar. The ta it we weren't in the bar. We were at the table. So it was one side of the table on the other. It wasn't like far away, right? Kind of. I'm I'm using the bar sort of as a landmark for not I didn't mean you were cited up to the bar, but just sort of as a landmark. You were closer to the bar than for instance in the foreground, which would be the high top tables in the foreground. Correct. We were just on the other I'm confused about this. We were just on the other side of the table. Okay. You did see on the opposite side of that that hightop table. That's where Brian Albert and Brian Higgins were standing talking and uh communicating with each other. Is that right? I believe so. I was talking to Miss Reed. I wasn't really paying attention to them. Did you ever see those two men get physical with one another that night? I did not that night. I did not see that. Have you ever seen a full review in in all the hours that you've sort of prepped for your testimony? Have you been shown that waterfall video from the time you got there until the time you left? Not the full video, but I have seen good portion of it. Yes. Okay. And you've certainly seen the portion where Brian Albert and Brian Higgins get up from the table and sort of get physical with one another. Correct. I would say more like play fighting and Nick Coleus was a little bit like doing it with them as well. Okay. So the the physical part is but all I'm asking is did they touch each other? Yes. Yeah. I guess I mean Yeah, I guess. Yeah. And you described it as play fighting, correct? I don't We could watch the video might explain it better than I could. We We probably will. Okay. But right now, I'm just asking about your memory. You remember them squaring off on one another? Play, but squaring off on one another. Correct. I don't remember them squaring off. Like I said, I just watched the video. I don't remember it from that night and I didn't really pay attention. that looked like foolish like guys just I don't I don't even know how to describe it. From your perspective, having watched the video, it appeared that they squared off on each other and sort of took a fighting stance. I didn't look at it that in depth, so I could not say that. Did you see them walk up to each other and grappling with one another like they were punching each other? I get that. Mhm. Were they grappling with one another like like faking punches to each other? I don't know. almost like sparring a little bit to be I don't honestly know. But you did see I saw them together. It's blurry and they're kind of I don't know really what they're doing. Okay. But they weren't standing there holding hands for Oh god. No. No. They weren't on their phones. All right. They were engaging with each other playfully I grabbing at each other. I don't really playfully grabbing at each other play fighting. Correct. That's my fault. I'd have to watch the video to categorize it as play fighting. You don't have that in your head. I didn't No, it was a quick um clip. I wasn't like focusing on Brian and Brian. I was just identifying that that was myself in the video and there was Miss Reed and I believe Miss Reed actually did some play fighting to Matt. There was in fact to Matt. Yeah, I feel like she was went like this to Matt at one point. Yeah. In the video. So, let's talk about let's talk about Brian and Brian. begins with Brian Albert. Mhm. Those two men very large in stature. Correct. They're big guys. Yeah. Big boys. Mhm. A lot bigger than me, right? Yeah. They took a fighting stance with each other and started grappling, playing, coming toward each other as if they were engaging in a fake physical altercation. Correct. I did not see that. I'm sorry. Okay. You didn't even see it on the video. I saw them on the video grabbing at each other. I didn't see stances or but again I didn't pay much attention to it. And that's your best memory as you sit here today. Yes. Okay. Um eventually you, your husband, Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, Nicole, Caitlyn, everybody went over to 34 Fair View at the end of the night. Correct. The bar closed at I'm guessing midnight. Okay. Is that right? I I think we were wrapping up around then. I don't know what time it actually closes. When you left Waterfall, the the people that were still there included Matt, your husband, and John O'Keefe. Is that right? Yes. You walked out with Karina Colus and Karen Reed. Yes. And you said to Miss Reed something along the lines of, "You're coming with me." Correct. I said, "Why don't you come with me?" Okay, fair enough. You were prompting her to join you for the ride over to 34 Fair View. Is that right? Yes. You even went outside and sort of waited in the cold. There's a video. Have you seen the video of you outside? The surveillance video of you outside in the cold. Yes. And you're sort of waiting there moving from foot to foot like it's freezing out, which I'm sure it was. Correct. Yes. Uh in a big puffy coat of some kind, right? So the question was I moving foot to foot in a coat. Yes. My question is more did you see yourself waiting outside in the cold? I saw myself convert. I believe I was in a conversation at that point when I was standing out there with John and Karen and that's when you were asking Karen to come with you. No, I had asked Karen previously when we were at the door to come with me because I didn't know how long Matt and John were going to be in the bar cuz they were in there still. And that would have by definition brought Karen to 34 Fair View separate and apart from John O'Keefe if Karen had come with you. Yes. Miss Reed and Miss Reed ultimately declined your invitation and did go with John. Is that right? John ended up coming to the door so they just went together. Yes. And finally, you walked away and went with your husband Matt over to 34 Fairview in your personal vehicle. Correct. Yes. When you arrived at 34 Fair View, were you the first among the group that we've just talked about to arrive or had others arrived before you? Um, others had arrived before me. When you walked in um to 34 Fair View, where was everybody generally located? give me a layout of the interior of the home, how you walked in and where everybody was located, the people that were there when you walked in from the waterfall. Um, so I walked in through the front door. I took a right into the kitchen. Um, and then there were people sitting around the kitchen table, Brian Albert Jr., uh Julie Nagel, Sarah Levenson, Caitlyn Albert. Uh my sister was over more towards like the counters and the sink, and Brian Albert and Brian Higgins were um there's like a room right off of the kitchen, like a TV room, and they were in there um just talking. I think Nicole had like put up some new pictures, so or maybe the son and the Marines, they might have been looking at a picture vaguely. I have a faint memory of that. You indicated that you walked in the front door, correct? Yes. May I approach briefly? Yes. Sure. Sure. Yeah. This is your photo. Can you just take a look uh at that photograph just for a second? Yes. Do you recognize the photograph? Yes. What do you recognize that photograph as being? It's my sister's house. 34th of Yes. Sorry. 34th of you. Brian Albert's house as well. Yes. I'd like to mark this as mark for identification. There's a um identification. Thank you. If I may, we do the next in order for identification. Thank you. Go ahead. Just slow. Okay. Um, what exhibit number is that, Mr. Wolf? Three. Your honor, with the court's permission, I'm going to show a different exhibit u until the other the other issue can be resolved with the court's permission. It's Commonwealth exhibit three. Permission to publish. Yes. Mr. W, could you um highlight or enlarge the house as much as you can? Thank you. Miss McCabe, do you recognize what's depicted in this photo? I know it's a little bit of an angle. Yes. What is that? That is 34 Fair View. Okay. Um, can you I think this laser will work. May I perch? Yes. Can you use that laser and point to the front door that you entered when you walked in the house? Okay. That's directly in the middle of the the just to the left of the flag pole for this purposes of this photograph. Correct. Yes. Okay. Is there another entry door on the house that you may not be able to see, but you know the general area? Yes. Where's that door? So, that would be or see where these two windows are? Yes. The door would be kind of behind that right there. So, it's right to the left of those two windows. And Miss McCabe, just staying with doors for a second. Is there another door associated with the garage? Oh, actually, yeah, there is. Right there. Right there next to that side door. Yes. Okay. Thank you. May I approach? Yes. Thank you. You didn't go in the side door. You went in the front door that night. Yes. Um you indicated that once inside the house, you were sort of in the in the kitchen area. Is that right? I was in the kitchen. Yes. you weren't paying special attention to Brian Albert or Brian Higgins, what they were doing. As a matter of fact, I think they went into a different room. Is that right? There's a room kind of the kitchen opens up into the TV room. So, they were in there. So, the only two that you recognized at this point in the night uh not being sort of with everybody else were Brian Albert and Brian Higgins separated uh out in the the family room or whatever that room's called, living room. Yeah. If you like just right there, you know, right where they are, just kind of right in the next room. When you first pulled up, did you notice any vehicles in front of Brian Albert's house? Yes, I did. What vehicles did you notice? Vehicle or vehicles? Did you notice? Just one. What was that vehicle? Um, it was a Jeep. Can you describe the Jeep for us, please? I really can't. All I can say is that when I pulled down, the Jeep was on the um parked on the street in front of the mailbox and I turned into the driveway. Okay. Did the Jeep have any special features on it that you remember that you can describe? Not that I can recall. Big giant snow plow on the front. Again, it was Doc. I just I didn't really pay much detail to it beyond I just asked whose Jeep is that. And did you learn whose Jeep that was? I did. Yes. Whose Jeep was it? Um, it was Brian Higgins Jeep. And you said that it was parked in front of the mailbox. Is that right? Yes. So, as you're looking at the house, the mailbox would be closest to the driveway. Is that right? Yes. Rather than, for instance, the flag pole on the other side of of the lawn. Correct. So, if the flag pole's here, there's the lawn, and then here's the drive. I mean, here's the mailbox, and then the driveway's over here. Okay. Does that make sense? It does to me. Um, thank you for that. You've previously indicated that the back edge of his of of that vehicle, Brian Higgins's Jeep, was at the side basically of the driveway, which is what you've just described. It would be blocking the mailbox, the rear end uh associated with the the driveway entrance, correct? Yes. Have you ever discussed having seen that Jeep in that spot with anybody else in this case? Um, is that including previous testimony or It it is at any time before you testified at the previous hearing, had you discussed having seen that Jeep in that spot with anybody else? For instance, your husband? Objection. Was there any other car on that curb line, if you will, other than the Jeep when you pulled in? Not that I remember. And Brian Higgins, if it's his Jeep, he's in the house. That Jeep's not moving. Correct. So, it stayed where it was. Yes. At some point, did you observe Miss Reed's vehicle pull up to the driveway? I'm sorry. Pull up to the house. I was told there was a vehicle outside, so I went and looked. Yes. Where was that vehicle when you when you looked that first time? Where was Miss Reed's SUV? Um, when I went to the front door and looked out, it was straight ahead. So, that would be parallel, actually in line with the Jeep. Correct. Yes. Directly in front of the Jeep. I don't know the distance, but yes, you're correct. It was in front of the Jeep. So, if the Jeep was a normal, it's a fullsize Jeep. Correct. I do not I don't know what size it is. Certainly, the SUV is a fulls size SUV. Yes. All right. So that would take up much of the room of the of the uh curb area in front of 34 Fair View between the Jeep, assuming there's a snow plow and a fullsize SUV. Correct. I'm not really sure of the whole area, but there was the Jeep and then there was the car. I just don't know the distance between them. You gave a description of the vehicles that were out in front of 34 Fair View in your January 29, 2022 u interview with Trooper Proctor. Correct. He came to my house and asked me questions. Correct. When you gave that interview to Trooper Proctor, you indicated to him that you first observed Miss Reed's vehicle parked on the street by the driveway. Correct. I never said by the driveway. No. So if that's in a report, trooper proctor got that fact wrong. Got that detail wrong. Sustain. If in fact Well, let me ask it this way. What did you say to Trooper Proctor about where that vehicle was? Miss Reed's vehicle. Correct. I told him it was straight out front the window. Uh the straight out front of the front door. Sorry, Jup Proctor wrote a report about his interview with you. Correct. Correct. You've seen that report in other hearings. Is that right? Yes. Your interview with him was on January 29th. Do you remember the date? I'm sorry, I just said the date. Do you remember the time? My mistake. I don't remember the exact time. I'm assuming afternoon, like after 12 or I'm not 100%. Sorry. You had been contacted by Trooper Proctor while you were still at 34 Fair View. Is that right? Yes. Ultimately, instead of coming from the Canton Police Department to 34 Fair View, you went home to your house. I to the Country Lane address. Yes, I did. And Proctor ended up meeting you there. Correct. Yes. And in addition to you and Matt being there Brian Albert showed up. Correct. I asked him to come. So you asked your brother-in-law to come to the interview that you were having with Trooper Proctor formally in furtherance of his investigation certain uh surrounding the circumstances of this case. Correct. No. But Brian Albert did show up at your house. He did. I asked him to come. Yes. And he was inside the house when Trooper Proctor uh ultimately interviewed you. Correct. He was in the house. Yes. And you'd spoken to Brian Albert before Trooper Proctor had interviewed you formally, correct? I believe so. Yes. Matter of fact, several times you had to have spoken to him at 34 Fair View. You've already said that, right? Oh, right. Yeah, we were all there on the case. And then obviously you spoke to him about the interview before Trooper Proctor got to your house to interview you on the 29th as well. Correct. We were just talking about what happened. It wasn't in spec like specifically about Trooper Proctor. Right. Not about Trooper Proctor. You talked to Brian Albert about the the circumstances of this case before you spoke with Tuper Proctor. Yes, I had. Do you remember exactly what you said to Triple Proctor about the location of the SUV in front of the house? I know what I said. Yes. Okay. What exactly did you say there? I my I said the car was straight out front of the front door. When I was looking out the front door, it was straight ahead. Isn't it true that what you actually said, Miss McCabe, is that you first observed the vehicle parked on the street by the driveway facing in the direction toward Chapman. Objection. I'll allow it. Is that what you said? Those are not my words. No. Okay. Next question. You've already indicated that following the events of January 28th and 29th, you have spoken extensively with your family and your friends uh members of your family and that your friend group about what happened that night. Correct. Yes. And that includes Brian and Nicole Albert. Is that right? Yes. Yes. That includes uh Matt McCabe, your husband. Correct. Yes. That includes Chris and Julie Albert. Yes. Includes other people that that were there that night, including Brian Higgins. I haven't spoken to Brian Higgins since I believe John O'Keefe's wake. But you did speak to him that morning at 34 Fair View. Is that correct? Yeah. Oh, yes, he was there. Yes. As a matter of fact, he's the one that told you to call Officer Lank back and have Officer Lank come back uh for the additional statement that you wanted to give Officer Lank. Is that right? He may have suggested it. I'm not sure. So, in those discussions that you've had with all these folks, you've talked to the details about that night being at the bar, the house, who was where, all of those things. Correct. Yes. You've talked about the timing of the night, who arrived, when people arrived at 34 Fair View, when people arrived at Waterfall Bar and Grill. Correct. No, those really aren't details we discuss. I mean, everybody kind of knows when they came and when they left. We talk more about, you know, living with everything that we've gone through. Well, what about on the on the morning of January 29th when everybody was still in that sort of friends and family gathering inside 34 Fair View? When I was there with my husband and sister and brother-in-law and, you know, then Brian's friend and Julie Albert, I I was trying to piece together what had happened. They were all being supportive. They had no idea what happened. It was we were just kind of sitting there in utter shock waiting to hear from Carrie about John. It was nothing more than just us being together and trying to figure out what had happened. I had gotten a phone call from Karen to help her. And during that conversation during that conversation or those that series of conversations, you were you were sharing what your observations of that evening were, what your story was, how how the evening started, how it ended for you. Correct. Or the morning ended for you. Correct. We didn't. No, I'm not correct. During the time that you folks were inside the house discussing this, there was no law enforcement a uh agent or officer inside that house. Correct. Correct. So the entire family and this the friend network that we're talking about with whom you discussed all these events, everybody was entitled to and did coordinate their statements without any separation and without any law enforcement oversight. Correct. I was with my family, my sister, my brother-in-law. It wasn't really a big group of us as I've mentioned. I five or six people. Um I was in shock. I didn't know what had happened. They were just asking me what happened questions like that and I absolutely told them. But it was no story. There was no us being allowed to do it. That was my family. They were just there with me like that. But nobody was separated by law enforcement. Correct. I don't believe there was a reason to separate us. Nobody. Well, not notwithstanding what you think was the reason. You're not a professional investigator. Correct. I'm not. No. You're not a trained investigator? No. You're certainly not a homicide detective. Correct. No. None of you witnesses were ever separated. Were you that morning? There was no reason to separate us. I'm asking you if there was a reason. Okay. I'm asking you whether or not factually anybody was separated in the house or is everybody allowed to talk amongst themselves? I was with my family. We didn't need to be allowed. Okay, let me try this again. Was anybody in that house separated? Were the witnesses separated from each other? The family who are witnesses, were they separated from each other by law enforcement? At that point, I don't think anyone but myself and Matt were maybe even witnesses. Okay. I'm not asking you what your determination of who the witnesses are. I'm asking you whether the folks in that house were separated by law enforcement before you were able to have discussions about the events of of January 28th and 29th. That's a yes or no question. Were you separated or not? At one point when Mike Lank was in the house, he had separated and talked to Nicole, then Brian, then Matt, and then he probably left and left everybody in the house together. Correct. He left us. Yeah. Right. Nobody was taken down to the station. Is that right? No. As a matter of fact, Trooper Proctor didn't even come over to 34 Fair View, the scene of the incident, to interview you. Correct. I asked him to meet at my house cuz I had to go home to my children. And he accommodated you, didn't he? He did. Yes. And he accommodated the fact that Brian Albert escorted you to the house for your interview. Correct. Brian didn't escort me. No. Well, he went to your house at the same time that Trooper Proctor was there to interview you. Correct. He came at some point. Yes. By himself. Before Trooper Proctor did the interview. I'm not sure if he was there if he got there before or when. Well, he arrived. You've testified in the past that Brian Albert came to your house alone. I don't mean you came in the same car, but he followed you over to your house before Trooper Proctor ever got there. And he was in the house while Trooper Proctor uh conducted his interview. Correct. Yes, Brian was in the house for the interview. Thank you. You've already indicated that you have been discussing this case with certain other witnesses, not for days or weeks or months, but literally for years, most specifically Carrie Roberts. Correct. The case in general. Yes. Just before Carrie Roberts testified at a grand jury proceeding in this case, you were with her, weren't you? I I don't I don't recall what you're talking about. Do you remember being at the grand jury? Yes. Do you remember testifying at the grand jury? Yes. The one back in April April. April. Yes. Yes. 22. Yes. Yeah, it sounds about right. Yeah. You remember being there in an anti room with some other folks? What's an anti room? Anti room. A waiting room. Oh, yeah. Your testimony. Yes. You remember Carrie Roberts being with you in that exact same anti room? Yes. And that was right before her testimony. Correct. I believe so. Yes. So, in answer to my question, you two were together literally just before she testified the grand jury, which was the first formal under oath testimony that she ever gave. Is that right? Yes. When she testified at the grand jury, was that before or after you two had gotten together and created this timeline? We did the timeline right after John had passed. So, she testified. The answer is she testified after the timeline was created. Correct. Yes. Brian Albert and his family had a dog on January 29th, 2022, did they not? Yes, they did. What was that dog's name? Chloe. What kind of dog was Chloe? German Shepherd. Uh, was it a Do you know if it was a purebred German Shepherd or a mix of Malininoa and German Shepherd or do you know? I have no idea. Big dog. Yeah, goodiz dog. Yeah. 70 pounder. I don't know its weight. Wasn't a little munchkin dog though. It was a full size German. It's a full size. Yeah. On the morning that you described going into the house, January 29th, uh 6:40 a.m. or so, Mhm. you indicated that you burst into the bedroom to wake your sister and Brian Albert. Is that right? Yes, I went into the bedroom. It's still dark out, correct? Yes. There had been relative chaos on the on the lawn for a number of minutes from about 6:10 until at least 6:40 when we went in. There were still emergency vehicles with lights on and engines running and chaos, relative chaos. Bend them as somebody has said on that front lawn. Correct. Was more on their sideline and down the street kind of like all the cruises that a lot of them were behind their lock right in front. of 34. Correct. To the side in the sideyard of 34th ft of view. Yes. On the lawn of 34th. Yes. Where first responders were responding, correct? Yes. And you said my client is screaming to the top of her lungs. Is that right? Yes, she was. And Carrie Roberts screaming back at her. Yes. Shut up. Shut the up. Right. Yes. Yeah. Then at 6:40 a.m. under the cover of darkness, you walked in the front door of the unlocked front door of Brian Albert's house. Correct. I went into my sister's house. Correct. It wasn't Brian Albert's house. And Brian Albert. Yes. I'm sorry. You then climbed the stairs up toward the bedrooms. Correct. Yes. You walked into the bedroom door where Brian Albert and Nicole Albert, according to you, were sleeping. Is that right? Yes. So, you would agree that you unexpectedly, in terms of their view, unexpectedly walked into their house basically in the middle of the night, middle of the morning. Yes. You indicated that when you went through their bedroom door, you sort of burst through. Correct. I opened the door. I don't know if I used the word burst. You've previously indicated that when you went through the door, it was chaotic because you were so amped up from the events. Is that right? I don't know if I used those words. Would you say that you were loud or quiet? I I was I think as I explained earlier, I was like where everything was going on around me and I was kind of like in a just a state of shock and I remember thinking I don't want to startle them but I have to wake them up because obviously when I wake them up they're going to be panicked and think something terrible happened. Well, why didn't you want to startle them? Something terrible had happened. I didn't want to give them a heart attack when I woke them up. But you didn't walk up and just nudge them and say, "Hey, you cold. Honey, can you wake up or something? You didn't do that. No, I was like, Brian, Brian, Nicole, wake up. Wake up. Okay. Exactly. But you weren't saying it in that voice either. You were saying, "Brian, Brian, Nicole, get up." I'm not sure if it was that loud, but I definitely was. You uh definitely like trying to wake them up. Yes. What was the dog's reaction? I don't recall seeing the dog. So according to you, a to the dog at least, if we can get in the mind of a dog, relative stranger walks in the front door, climbs a set of stairs. The house is completely dark, walks into a bedroom door and starts barking. The person starts barking. Get up. Wake up, Brian. Nicole. And you don't remember seeing or hearing a dog at all. Objection. Sustain. As you indicated, it's not that the dog wasn't reactive. It's that you don't remember the dog even being there. Correct. I have no memory of the dog. No. But you do know that that dog sleeps in Brian and Nicole's room. Correct. It may. I don't know for sure. The reason you don't remember the dog being there is because the dog wasn't there, was it? I don't remember the dog. Right. So, when you walked out of the room, sorry, when you walked in the house, didn't see the dog? No. When you walked up the stairs, no dog? No. Walked down the hallway, no dog. No. walked into Brian and Nicole's bedroom door. No dog. I don't remember seeing the dog. I realized I realized that. Dog or no dog? No dog. I don't remember seeing the dog. Doesn't mean it wasn't there or it was there. I just don't remember seeing it. Well, you didn't No dog came up to you and barked at you. Correct. No. You didn't see or hear a dog whining or howling, did you? No. You didn't hear or uh see a dog scratching at the door? No. There's no sign of a dog at all in Brian and Nicole Albert's house at 6:41 a.m. when you walked into that house. Correct. Or 6:40. I don't remember seeing the dog. And this was a 70 lb German Shepherd. Correct. I don't know the weight of the dog. Have you ever heard the Have you ever uh heard a description given about that dog by Brian Albert? Anybody else? That that dog was not good with strangers? Yeah. Did you know as you that you said you're very very dear friends and obviously dear friends with Brian Albert relations with uh with Nicole Albert your sister. Are you aware that that dog was not good with strangers? Object. Do you know that? I don't. I it wasn't good with other dogs is what I knew. So I could never bring my dog over there. That's all I know about the dog. Right. Had some aggression. Correct. At least with other dogs. Possibly possibly with other judges. That's our next question. Thank you, your honor. If you could remind the jurors in your memory, who was the last person to leave the house 34 Fairview on the morning of the early morning hours of January 29th? I believe Caitlyn left after us. My niece, thank you. at some point. Um, we've already talked a little bit about this. You said you looked out the the front door glass. Was it a window or is the whole door glass? The whole door was glass, I believe. Is it like a, and pardon my ignorance, is there like a a wooden door that is opened and there's a storm door that's all glass that was closed? Is that what we're dealing with? I believe so. Yes. Yeah, that sounds about right. Mhm. Can we take one more glance? I'm going to back up for a quick second. Can we take one more glance at that uh exhibit exhibit three of the course commission? Okay. Thank you. And can you enhance that just a little bit, please? Thank you so much. May I approach? Yes. Forgot to ask you, and I apologize, Mr. McCer. Can Pete, please show the jurors where Brian and Nicole Albert's bedroom window is in that photograph? Sure. It's right there. Upper left window. Upper most left window. Correct. Yes. Thank you. May approach. Yes. Okay. Let me get back on track. Uh you indicated that you looked out that storm door uh and saw Miss Reed's vehicle, her SUV directly in front of you. Correct. Yes. That was the first time you noted or clocked that SUV being there. First time. Sorry. The first time you noted the SUV. In other words, that you visually saw it. It was directly in front of you. It was not back by the mailbox. Correct. Correct. Did you still see the Jeep parked back by the mailbox? I looked out the window. I saw the car. I really didn't pay attention to details of other cars. I just looked and saw her car. When you first looked out that window and saw or looked out the door Mhm. and saw the SUV. What time was that? I don't remember off the top of my head. I'm sorry. Does the time 2:23 a.m. sound familiar? 2:23, I'm sorry. 12:23. My mistake. I'm again, I'm not sure. When you looked out the door, um, did you see any other vehicles at that time other than the Jeep other than Miss Reed's SUV? I believe I saw lights. Oh, sorry. Lights like over here um somewhere. If the Jeep's there and the car, sorry, is there. Um, okay. May I May I can you describe for the record what you did? The the theirs don't come across on the record. So to your left, yes, uh straight out would be Miss Reed's vehicle that I looked at. Okay. Um I don't I kind of looked at that. I remember my peripheral vision seeing lights over there to the left. Sorry. All right. So the way that you're describing this and that's lights to a a vehicle, correct? Yes. Matter of fact, you know what vehicle that is? I do. Yes. What vehicle is it? Describe it for the jurist, please. It's Ryan Nagels. Ryan Nagel's what? car, truck. I believe he has a truck. Okay. Um, so what you're describing is you looked out the window, you saw Miss Reed's SUV directly in front of you. Right behind that in line was Brian Higgins Jeep and behind that was Ryan Nagel's truck. Is that right? I'm not sure where his truck lines up. I just remember seeing lights. I just quickly went saw Miss Reed's car and went back into the room. I wasn't I apologize paying attention for like specific details about cars. At some point you did become interested in exactly what time uh Ryan Nagel's truck arrived. Correct. This is after the fact. Well after the fact, months after the fact. Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, you took it upon yourself to ask Julie Nagel, Ryan's sister, to send you something. Correct. Yes, I did. What did you ask her to send you? I ran into the two of them. I didn't ask you who you ran into. Just what did you ask her to send you? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Um, a text message. A screenshot of a text message. Yes. A screenshot of a text message between Julie and Ryan Nagel. You knew at the time that Miss Nagel very obviously was a recipient witness in this case, correct? I believe so. It was very early on. Well, I mean, she she was in the house, Mr. Yes. She was in the house when Miss Reed's vehicle appeared. Correct. Correct. She was in the house when you were looking at the vehicle. Correct. She was in the house when everybody came home from the came to 34 therapy from the waterfall bar and grill. Correct. Correct. She was interacting was inside the house at the very time we're talking about, right? Yes. She went outside at some point to talk to her brother outside the house of right behind the SUV that you're describing as Miss Reed's SUV. Correct. Yes. So, you knew that she was and you knew all this when you asked her for that screenshot. I was trying to piece together. You knew all this when you asked for the screenshot. You knew what her position was in this case. Correct. She had no involvement. What happened outside if she had involvement? Let her finish her answer. Go ahead, Miss McCabe. Finish that answer. I didn't. What happened outside was separate from anything that happened inside. I'm going to ask you again. You knew all of that information that she was Julie Nagel was a recipient witness in this case as was everyone else inside 34 Fair View when you asked for that screenshot. Correct. Yes. That is another example of you coordinating information with other witnesses in this case. Correct. No, that is not correct. You were advised were you ever advised by Michael Proctctor not to coordinate information with other witnesses in the case? Did he ever say don't do that? I don't recall. So, you don't recall or he didn't? I don't recall if he did or not. Okay. If he did tell you not to coordinate with other witnesses, this would be a breach of that of that agreement, wouldn't it? Objection. Sustained. Indeed, once you got that screenshot, we'll talk about that in just a second. When you got the screenshot, did you ever share that with law enforcement? I'm not sure if I did or not. You never provided that to Michael Proctor or any other investigator. Did you? I'm not sure if I did or not. As a matter of fact, Miss McCabe, the only reason we know about that screenshot is because of the extraction on your phone. Isn't that right? If that's how you know about it, I'm not sure. You asked for that screenshot for your own personal use, for your own personal information, for your own personal coordination, correct? Of what happened that night? That's what are you asking? There's three questions there. Did you ask for that screenshot for your own personal use? Yes. And indeed, you do know what time it was that you looked out and saw Ryan Nagel's truck because the screenshot told you that. Correct. The sc the screenshot told me when Ryan Nagel pulled up. It didn't tell when I saw. And what was the time when Ryan Nagel indicated that he pulled up? I'd have to look at the screenshot. 2:23 a.m. 12:23 a.m. Sunburn if you have it and that's what it says. Absolutely. May I approach? Yes. Mayor. Okay. Take a look at that transcript that call. You can read that to yourself. I'd like to be heard. All right. Why don't you come to council? may. Yes. Thank you. May I approach? Yes. Take a look at the highlighted portion and tell me if that refreshes recollection about anything we've been discussing. Could I Is the page available? Just a yes or no? Does that refresh your recollection about anything that we've been discussing? It's just what we've discussed. It doesn't really refresh. Okay. So, it does not refresh her memory. Next question. I I don't think that's what she said. Is that That's what you said. Yes, that's what I said. That was her answer. That does not refresh your recollection. Objection. That was her answer. Next question. Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Take a look at the bottom of that page and tell me if that refreshes your recollection about anything we were just discussing. May I? Yes. Thank you, Mr. McCabe. Having seen these, does this refresh your recollection about what we were just discussing concerning that conversation regarding me asking Julie Nagel for the time? Correct. Yes, it does. Okay. And what time did that that was attended to a screenshot that you asked for? Correct. Yes. And that time was what? Objection. Do you remember the time? I I can I look at the paper? I was reading everything. I looked at the paper. The question is whether you remember the Oh, do I remember it? I don't remember the exact time, but I can read it off the paper. That's different than a memory. That's different. Next question. So, this does not refresh your recollection as to the time that was reflected on that screenshot. I can read the time, but in my memory, on my question, I have to do it this way. Okay. Sorry. Does it refresh your recollection as you sit here having read this as to the time that was reflected on that screenshot? I remember I don't sitting here today. The only reason I know there's a time is because of what's on that paper. But you did ask for a screenshot from Miss Nagel. Correct. Yes, I did. And that screenshot said something to the effect of outside. Is that right? What's wrong? Just that question. The screenshot said something about outside. Is that right? I believe it said here. Yes. Or maybe it's Yeah, I something similar. I don't know. It was screenshot from Ryan Nagel to Julie Nagel indicating that he had arrived. Can you repeat the question? Sure. It was a screenshot of a text message from Ryan Nagel to Julie Nagel saying, "I've arrived." In other words, I've arrived at 34 Fairview. Yes, it was because he was intending to give her a ride home which she had asked for. Is that right? Objection. You did see Julie Nagel go outside and approach the vehicle, correct? I never saw her go near the vehicle. I saw her go outside. Got it. Did she ultimately come back indoors? Yes. Did she come back in with anybody else? No. About what time would you estimate that to have been in the course of that evening? When she came back inside. when she walked out and then came back inside. Soon after she went out, she talked to her brother, she came back inside. And about what time a day was that? If you know, I And this was all happening while we were at my sister's house, right? Was it 12:15, 12:30, 12:45, 1:00? Well, according to that paper, I would have had to accord not according to Do you have an independent recollection of about if not down to the minute about what time that was? I could say I'd have to be I wasn't looking at my watch that night, so it's very hard for me to give a time just off of my memory. I know what I've seen, but Okay. Um, it's hard. You did see both Ryan Nagel's truck and Miss Reed's SUV in front of the house at the same time. Correct. I saw his lights in my peripheral vision on the left. But the lights are attached to what? The car, but it wasn't out front. Miss Reed's vehicle was out front, right? When I say in front of 34 Fair View, we're going to talk about the the spacing in just a second. I just meant out in front of the house. Yes. So, over to the side. Correct. Yeah. And you're indicating that, and I want to be clear about this, as you're looking out that storm door window, going from right to left, it was Miss Reed's vehicle. Correct. Yes. Then Higgins's Jeep. Is that right? His Jeep was in front of the mailbox. Then behind that, was there a space? And then Mr. Mr. uh Nagel's truck or was the truck right behind the Jeep? That's what I can't tell you. I just remember seeing lights. I didn't look over and pay much attention to it. I was just quickly looking at the Miss Reed's car and then I went back and sat down. Do you recall testifying at a prior hearing that it was your perception was Miss Reed's car, her SUV, the Jeep? Mhm. A space, and then Mr. Nagel's truck from right to left. I remember Mr. Nagel's truck over to the left in my peripheral vision. I can't give you a exact location, but there's no question in your mind as you sit here that Brian Higgins's Jeep was between Ryan Migle's truck and Miss Reed's SUV. You remember that very clearly, correct? I know that this Miss Reed's vehicle was here and there were lights in my peripheral vision over here. I wasn't, you know, I just was looking quickly. Okay. So, let me ask you a question again. Okay. Assuming that the lights are attached to something's truck, we've already established that. What you're looking at when you look out the store window is Miss Reed's truck. Mhm. Or SUV rather. So, just behind that left, as you're looking at it, Mr. H's Jeep, correct? And behind that, Mr. Nagel's truck. You remember the Jeep being between the truck and the SUV? Correct. I I remember looking out the window. It was dark. I remember seeing lights over to the left. That is what I remember. Where was the Jeep as it relates to the lights? I'm assuming the Jeep was still parked at the mailbox. You saw it. I It's a 5,000lb Jeep, right? It was dark. I wasn't studying outside. I It It was a quick thing I did. I looked. I saw it. I went back to the table. Okay. And I'm asking for what the saw mark was. Let's just slow down on the saw part. Okay. We looked. You saw Ryan's truck. Then you saw Hayes's Jeep. Then you saw Miss Reed's SUV. Correct. I saw Miss Reed's SUV parked straight out front. And in my peripheral vision, I saw lights that Yes. must have been attached to a truck, but I didn't I didn't study the the lineup of cars. I'm sorry. All right. So, can I have one more question? One more question. Where was the Jeep? Was it in front of the SUV? behind Mr. Michael's truck or was it between the two of them? It's a simple question. You're asking what I saw when I looked outside. I didn't. And I'm telling you exactly what I saw. It was dark. It was Karen's car there and in my peripheral vision, I saw lights and then I went back to the table. Okay, that's the last question. We're going to break for lunch. All right, jurors. We'll take our lunch recess and if you can follow up right behind the jur. Okay. Thank you. Right this way. Thank you. Goodbye. or do you remember the defendant saying anything to the first responder? Yes. What did she say? Um, she told the first responder, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Good afternoon. I'm Anette Levy and this is one of the days that a lot of people have been waiting for in this trial. Jen McCabe on the stand testifying in the retrial of Karen Reed. She's a pivotal witness, a critical witness for the Commonwealth in this case and also a critical witness for the defense in this case. Um, and we'll talk about why. Uh, so we're going to be taking your questions this lunch hour as we always do. So, please submit those in the YouTube chat and we will get to as many of them as we can. Uh, we have a fantastic guest this hour talking with us about the case and taking your questions. She is Katherine Loftess. She is an attorney and legal analyst up there in Massachusetts. And she also does a lot of Tik Tocking. She's note my objection on Tik Tok. So, give her a good follow there. She's also on Substack and Instagram. So, Katherine, I want to talk to you about how you think uh Jen McCabe has been doing on the stand thus far. She's under cross-examination right now um by Alan Jackson. Uh a little bit different this time, maybe not as combative as it was in the first trial. Um so, you know, I don't I don't know. I don't know. It's a little toned down from the first trial. First engine, thanks for having me today. I'm glad to be here and answer some questions. So, I think your instincts are correct that um the tone from Alan Jackson in cross-examination is a little bit less sort of combative, aggressive. Obviously, that's his really winning style. He's an excellent cross-examiner. He's uh knows how to ask questions of a witness and really get what he wants from them. But I think that the change in sort of how he's asking the questions and how he's approaching Jen McCabe is reflective of how her direct examination testimony went in versus trial number one. Um, and I think that Hank Brennan was able to uh use Jen McCabe in a way that was more efficient to the Comwalth case. I think she seemed more wellprepared. She seemed a little bit more relaxed. And so when Alan Jackson got up to question, I think the goal is really to, you know, um undermine her credibility to the jury, but also to to walk that line of not overstepping because she did come off uh fairly credible. I think on direct examination, um to come out right off the bat so aggressively probably would not have been the correct tactic from Alan Jackson. But as you saw, he changed his um you know, sort of the manner in which he began asking her questions. So I think so far that both of them have changed from trial one um both in the testimony and the way she's being questioned. Yeah. And I think I think there personally I think there are a few reasons for that. I mean, you never know. Maybe Jen McCabe went back and watched her testimony and she was like, "Wow, I was a little I was a little aggressive there." Um, also I feel like, and maybe I'm wrong, Katherine, but you tell me this because you're the one up there in Massachusetts, but it feels like the temperature has been turned down a little bit uh from the first trial. Uh, in the first trial, I feel like that buffer zone area was chalk full of people every day, and it doesn't seem like we're hearing about that as much. Like the throngs of people showing up. Uh, maybe the temperature has come down on that just a little bit. and maybe she's not feeling quite as tense. Um I I don't know because these people say they've been, you know, subjected to all of this harassment for, you know, over a year um by people who support the free Karen Reed movement. Uh that didn't really come up in the direct examination. Plus, you have a different prosecutor this time um who just has a much different style. And you and I talked about this last week that Hank Brennan just knows what he's looking for and he can get that information out pretty quickly. Um, and maybe it's just a whole different experience this time around. I I think it isn't. And something that often isn't talked about is really what's going on in the world of the witness that comes to the stand and whether that be Jen McCabe or anybody else really. Um, all of the witnesses know that they are under immense scrutiny. They're being watched. You know, we're talking about it on a lunchtime break. And so they have that awareness in their mind when they're coming to the stand, which I think there's a sort of natural inclination to nervousness, but at the same time, as you said, these witnesses have been through this multiple times at this point. So Jen McCabe has testified in multiple grand juries. She's testified in a previous trial here. She knows exactly what Alan Jackson is um looking to do with her testimony, which is get under her skin. And I think that I think it in the midst of trial one, it was really really the height of um what those witnesses would term as harassment, you know, the kind of intense scrutiny locally. And it's still um it's still very much so talked about here in Boston, but there is a little bit, as you said, that the tone has been in my perspective dialed down a little bit. It almost feels like on a national level there's more people paying attention to it, but that locally a lot of people have kind of checked out. They're a little Karen Reed weary. You know, that it's it's taken up a lot of um you know, sort of the airwaves over the last couple of years. So, I think that some of these civilian witnesses like Carrie Roberts, like Jen McCabe, they've almost become a little bit more accustomed to what is going on outside and they may not let it affect them quite as much. I think that's reflective of how she's testifying today. Yeah, definitely. Um, that was part of what I was thinking as well. Uh, let's take a look at some of the cross-examination of Jen McCabe by Alan Jackson. We'll talk about it on the other side and then we're going to get to your questions. So, please continue to put those in the chat and Katherine and I will get to as many of them as we can. But this is Alan Jackson questioning Jen McCabe about her conversations with Carrie Roberts. Carrie Roberts and Jen McCabe. Uh for those of you who might just be joining us or just checking into the trial, they were with Karen Reed that morning on Fair View Road. Uh they rode with her to Fair View Road when they Karen Reed runs up and finds John Mc uh John O'Keefe in the snow. Um so they're there. They're they're crucial and critical witnesses. So let's take a look at um Alan Jackson questioning cross-examining Jen McCabe about her conversations with Carrie Roberts. Did reviewing those paragraphs refresh your recollection as to whether or not as to what you told those agents initially concern I'm sorry what you told those officers initially from that other law enforcement agency uh that about who you contacted in that 10-minute interval. Yes, I told them. And you told them that you you had contacted your husband Matt McCabe. Yes. And Carrie Roberts. Correct. I want to stick with that for just a quick second. One of the first calls you made after being contacted by this other law enforce these other law enforcement officers from a different agency. Uh, one of the first calls you made was to Carrie Roberts. Is that right? She was the first one. I That's what I'm asking. One of the first two calls you made, your husband, right? Come home. There's law enforcement outside my door, I'm guessing, is what you said. Correct. I don't remember my exact words now, but I did ask him to come home. Correct. And Carrie Roberts. Okay. Yes. You wanted to let Miss Roberts know that you had been contacted by certain officers from a different agency. Correct. I was curious if I was curious as if they had already been to her. That was my that was my next question. You also wanted to find out had the have these uh law enforcement officers from this different agency contacted her? Correct. Yes. Cuz typically if you enter our town, she's Miss McCabe. Yes or no? Oh, sorry. I was just trying to explain. I'm sorry. Is that why you contacted her to find out if in fact they had contacted her before you? Yes or not? Yes. And you also wanted to find out what she told them if she had been contacted by them. Correct. That was your motive in calling her. No. So, you just wanted to find out had she been contacted. But if she had said yes, you weren't going to say, "And what the hell did they say? What' they ask you? Well, I can't I most I can't say what I would have answered what I would have asked her, but I know I was calling to see if they had been there. Yes. That was your That was your intent. I called to ask her if they had been there. Yes. So, that was your intent? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. So there's Jen McCabe asking answering questions or a series of questions from Alan Jackson about calling Carrie Roberts, you know, after she had spoken to some law enforcement officers. Uh we have a poll that we had put up. Um one of them was, "Do you think Jennifer McCabe is a credible witness?" 81% of our respondents, 3.1,000 people voted saying no. 81% say no. Um so our next poll is, "Was Jennifer McCabe more trustworthy today or during the first trial?" So, uh, everybody, um, why don't you go in and, uh, vote on that one. Uh, so let's talk about that clip and we're going to take a couple of questions, um, after that. Did you think that bit of cross-examination, Katherine, was effective? I mean, is it a big deal that Jen McCabe is calling Carrie Roberts, um, after she's, you know, approached by law enforcement and she's going to talk to law enforcement? Well, I I think that's you know, Alan Jackson wants the jury to believe that it's a problem and it's suspicious and you know that this is the question about how information presents to a jury because there's really two different perspectives and really, you know, ways that you could take this. I I assume what the Commonwealth would say is, you know, these are individuals who have sort of been a traumatic experience. It's these agents. They're not able to mention them in the courtroom during the trial, but we presume these are the um agents from the FBI do the federal investigation. And so there's you know the difficult um you know thing with this line of question is there's this sort of peripheral question about what's going on with the federal investigation that he can't really ask her directly and therefore she can't really answer directly. So this information that's sort of being left out from um you know really portraying what the the full picture of it was. You know from the defense's perspective I think it's always a win when you can you know catch a witness in any sort of inconsistency or to be able to point to well you didn't tell the truth or this was misleading and you did that to you know law enforcement. Um you know so it helps in their quest to reduce the credibility of Jen McCabe. The question really becomes overall does the jury think that Jen McCabe is calling Carrie Roberts to make sure that she has her story in line and that's going to go to the underlying assessment of credibility on both Carrie Roberts and and Miss McCabe. So, um, it's effective in that it's a, you know, it's a a box you have, you have enough box you want, you want to check enough on cross- examination of a witnesses to at least be able to argue to the jury in closing. You know, their credibility cannot be relied upon. Um, so it's not huge in and of itself, but it's a it's a small piece of the part um of their of their sort of um goal to discredit her. Uh, we've got a bunch of questions coming in now. Uh, this first one, Katherine, is from ND. Why isn't Jen told to answer yes or no by the judge? She is dancing around the answer. Um, is there an is there a reason why she is allowed to kind of offer, you know, more elaborate answers to some questions um than others? I mean, it's hard to answer that specifically without um knowing what the actual question was because honestly, there's objections to many lines of question and they're all very specific to what the underlying question was. But you you know, judges try to give um you know there's there's leeway to the rules and there's leeway. You'll often hear somebody ask a question whether whatever party it is, you know, and technically it's hearsay, but you don't hear anybody object because, you know, the the um the testimony that will come in won't inherently harm your side, so you don't object. is there's almost small little um uh what what basically when the when the witnesses ask a yes or no question and is trying to explain it. Sometimes the judge will get let them give a little bit of context, but they're not going to allow them the narrative form as if they were on direct. But the consistent um if a if a witness is being overall cooperative, the judge likely is not going to push unless at some point they become hostile or adverse to the lawyer questioning them. Uh our next question comes from Justin Lions. Is the judge interjecting herself too much? Should she sit back and be quiet unless there is an objection? Um she does kind of jump in sometimes and ask questions. Um she I kind of like that actually. I think she kind of gets to the point and the witnesses seem to turn to her and really answer the question and then it it seems to speed things up. I actually think we're not hearing the objections um mostly from the Commonwealth. They're very very faint. So the way I was interpreting court today was that the the judge's responses they almost seem as if she's inserting herself, but they're actually objections um to the comm. I don't know if their microphone is just not being picked up as much, but you can only very very faintly hear um attorney Brennan. So, generally when there is an objection and the judge says, you know, she can either sustain it or she can overrule it or she can ask the witness, you know, can you answer that? Because that ultimately goes to whether she's going to rule overrule or sustain it. So sometimes, you know, the Alan Jackson will ask a question that's technically, you know, on the line, but if she can answer it, the the judge is going to allow it and say, you know, answer the question and then move on to the next u you know, Mr. Jackson or Mr. Brennan. Interesting. Um I want to get to our poll results. Uh we asked that question of everybody. Was Jennifer McCabe more trustworthy today or during the first trial? Um, and the options were first trial, second trial, and 57% of people are saying she was more trustworthy in this trial than the first. Um, so that's kind of interesting. Um, so I that's interesting. Some of our chatters in the chat think that she's coming across as more credible this time around. Uh, our next question uh from Sin City 101. Can they really limit the witness's answers to yes or no? Sometimes an explanation is needed to establish the context. Well, that sort of goes into our prior question about, you know, why the judge is advising them because for as much as technically within the boundaries of the law, she could limit them to just yes or no answers. But, as this user um pointed out, it often isn't just a black and white answer. It often at least uh requires a little bit of an explanation. What will happen if um a witness is instructed to answer in a yes or no fashion that there is an explanation to or sort of some you know maybe mitigating circumstances as to why the witness answered yes or no then the attorney on the other side so in this case uh attorney Brennan will get up on redirect and basically what we call rehabilitate the witness they'll go to that specific question and ask to explain why did you answer yes and can you tell the jury you know what was happening Yeah, and I I think we'll see that happen uh with a lot of what's happened on cross. I mean, that's that's basically how it works in every case. Um so it'll be interesting to see what happens on redirect when the cross is over. Um we can go now uh to one more question, then we'll listen to a little bit more of the cross-examination. So our next question comes from Patty Rogers. Um that dog was going nuts talking about Chloe. We we actually heard about Chloe for the first time in testimony today. Uh that dog was going nuts and the Alberts did not come out. Why? I mean, we heard Jen McCabe testify that she went into the house, the door was unlocked, she went upstairs and um got Nicole, her sister, and Brian Albert up. She woke them up and told them, you know, what was going on outside. She said she didn't see the dog when she went in the house. So, um, is that going to be a big deal? Because we know that the dog is part of the defense in this case that, you know, there the defense is claiming that Chloe caused those bite marks or the scratch marks, whatever those marks are on John O'Keefe's arm. I think the dog will be a still a large part of the case as it was the first trial. um you know it's interesting as to what her memory is that she testifies to and she was able to because she doesn't have a memory of the dog you know per her um statements today Alan Jackson was able to sort of pull that out and say you know you didn't see the dog when you came to the front door you didn't see the dog when you went upstairs you didn't hear the dog barking you know which is unusual if it's a German shepherd you know and so again there's two different perspectives one is that maybe the dog was barking somewhere or was in another room and she was in such a state of trauma that she doesn't have a memory of that or you know something nefarious which is what where the defense wants the jury to go that isn't this unusual that there's a German shepherd in the house not friendly with you know whether it's other dogs or is it people that makes no noise when you come in the house at 6:00 in the morning. So, it's certainly going to be a focus of the defense. And uh we'll see what other witnesses testify about the dog uh when they get up on the stand, like where was the dog? Um and she may, you know, she may have been in such a state that she doesn't remember seeing the dog or I I don't know. Was the dog caged up? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see how the testimony comes out in this trial. Um, so let's go now to um more of the discussion about Carrie Roberts and um talking with her. This is Alan Jackson cross-examining Jen McCabe and asking her uh did you talk to Carrie Roberts and why did you talk to Carrie Roberts um after these investigators come knocking on the door? There's this 10-minute interval in time. Uh so let's take a listen to that. Your motive in calling Carrie Roberts at that moment before your interview was to ensure that your story would line up with her story, Miss McCabe. Isn't that right? No, that is not. You wanted to find out if she had talked to these particular law enforcement officers and what she had told them so that your story could somehow align or it could inform how you responded to questions that they asked you. Isn't that true? That's not true. We both know what happened. We don't have to have a story. There is no story. There's what happened and that's it. So, if that's true, Miss McCabe, we have no reason to call Carrie and ask her if she had been contacted by the law enforcement agents because it's just the truth. Correct. We're going through this whole experience together. We call each other about everything. That's nothing more than that. I'm sorry. Let her finish her answer. Go ahead, Miss McCabe. You can finish that. There's nothing more than me calling and saying, "Hey, did they come to your house?" That's what we did when the media showed up. When Miss Reed's private investigator showed up, we just give each other the heads up. Hey, somebody's coming. Cuz we're just like normal moms. We're not used to this. And that's all right. Jen McCabe saying, "We're not used to this stuff. I'm just calling her to see if they came to her house, like what's going on." Does that come off as credible to you, Katherine? You know, it's it's difficult because we know outside of this what else is going on that will contribute to the, you know, this sort of explanation that Jen McCabe has, which is, you know, we're all going through this together, this traumatic experience. And what she really means is, you know, we've all sort of bonded as the witnesses in this case because of the outside, you know, scrutiny, harassment that has come, but she can't testify to that. So, without that piece of information, it does, you know, come off as questionable, I think, to to the jury because there's not an a further explanation as to um you know, why they would all be talking to each other. you know, on the same um on the other hand, um it depends on who the jury is. You know, as a somebody who's this similar age, you know, a mom, if there was something like this that happened, I think all of us have this sort of understanding that the people who that traumatic experience happened with, if if police maybe came to your door, you might call someone and say, "Did they come over here? What did they say? What do they want?" You know, that's sort of a natural in inclination. And then when you look at it, you know, under scrutiny in a murder case, um, it becomes a little bit more suspicious, but I'm not sure that it automatically equates to that. So again, Alan Jackson is trying to get small wins with each piece of testimony and line of questioning. Um, so it's not, you know, it's it's not going going to be this big smoking gun. He's just trying to reduce her credibility, you know, piece by piece with different um attacks on her credibility. I do find it so interesting how he's trying to, you know, attack her credibility and diminish her credibility, but then at the same time u balancing that out with scoring some points through her testimony by by making her credible in some respects when he points to certain uh parts of you know certain photographs and things like that. So, I I find that to be a delicate balance. You know, it's kind of like he's w walking a little bit of a tight rope right there. Um, let's get to let's get to one of the big reasons why the Commonwealth called uh Jen McCabe, and that's going to be in the form of one of the questions that we have here from uh hi with a bunch of eyes. Uh, how damaging is it to Karen Reed's defense that she allegedly said, "I hid him." And then her friend googled House how House Long to die in the cold. Does that show knew exactly what happened? And that and I mean that was what we started the show with. She's she's testifying Jen McCabe is about Karen Reed. She's running around at this at this crime scene saying, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Um, and then she's, you know, according to what the Commonwealth claims, asking Jen McCabe to Google how long to die in the cold. So, so how bad is that for the defense? I mean, h how bad does that look? You know, I I actually don't I don't think that the Google if let's hypothetically accept the Commonwealth theory that the Google search happened at 6:30 and not at 2:27. Um, if we take that as fact for sort of the the way we assess this, I'm not sure that Karen Reed asking Jen McCabe at 6:30 in the morning, how long did it take to die in the cold isn't inherently problematic for her. I think no matter what, if you find somebody, it's a reasonable, you know, assumption that if you anybody found an individual, you know, outside in the snow, you might, that might be one of your first questions. How long does it to take to die in the cold? how long does he have to have been out here? I'm not sure that it it um necessarily ascribes guilt to her or knowledge of anything. But what it does is it refutes the defense's theory. I don't know that we would ever even be talking about a 6:30 time search if the defense had not first posited that the the Google search happened at 2:27. I don't think this was ever going to be part of the Comwalth's case in trying to prove the elements against her. But what the point of that going in um through Ian Wiffin and Jen McCabe is to rebut the defense theory that Jen McCabe googled it at 227 because that's really a big crux of their underlying theory that um that shows knowledge and intent um not only about what allegedly happened in the house but what the plan was following that. So, you know, it's not inherently problematic for the defense, the Google search itself, but the fact that it refutes the 227 timeline is problematic if taken as the correct interpretation of the data. And we'll listen to a little bit of that here um in a minute or two, but let's get to more of the questions uh from the viewers. Uh Kelly Stevens asks, "What happened to the glass that John left with from the bar? What if the cuts on his arm are from that glass? Those are deep cuts, not similar to dog bites or claw marks. This is Kelly Stevens's question. So, she she's wondering what if that glass that John O'Keefe, you know, that he was holding when he got out of the vehicle um caused those marks on his arm. Um, you know, Kelly doesn't think they look like dog marks or claw marks or bite marks or whatever. So that um that theory about the glass that wasn't presented and during trial one it was very unclear even from the Commonwealth's perspective what they thought actually caused those marks on John O'Keefe because obviously it's their perspective it's not a dog it's not an animal something from the accident did you know I I think that the glass is the fair you know piece of evidence that's in play and you know kind of gives like Kelly said what role does the does the glass play in this. So, there's a broken glass that's found with John's body, and I somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure they will. Um, I believe it was found underneath him. Um, but it was found with him. So, you know, there is an argument to be made and it was broken. So there is an argument to be made that if she did hit him and the glass was in his hand somehow, you know, in the moving between the um the striking of his body and falling on the lawn um that the glass could have caused those cuts. So we haven't heard yet what the theory is from the Commonwealth. We haven't gotten to that type of evidence. Um but I expect that the glass will play some role. Yeah, the glass and then um you know the light um the cracked tail light. So I'm going to be interested to see what they say this time around um because you know they've indicated they've got another expert this time. Um so I'm I'm not thinking we're going to hear the same type of thing. I mean it was last time it was not good. I mean the trooper Paul testimony did not go well. Um so I think there you know probably learned the lesson from trial one. Um, Cass_G59 asks, "How did nobody hear the crash? John didn't scream. There was no loud thud from an SUV allegedly hitting his body going 24 miles hour. No tire noises, nothing. How is that possible?" Well, you know, everything we've heard is that this this uh head injury was immediately incapacitating, Katherine. That's right. And even, you know, the idea of, so we're talking at 12:30 at night, you know, it's dark out, it's New England, it's freezing. Um, you know, the testimony is that most of the people are in the house, they have the music going on. So, I I'm not sure that it's that unreasonable to think that nobody could have heard the accident. And as you said, um what we know, we don't know yet from this trial's testimony, and so it'll be interesting to see what the um the medical doctors and the medical experts testified to, but that it was if not immediately incapacitating, you know, you would assume pretty soon thereafter. Um that's the Cromwell's position. So I I don't know that it's um I don't know that it's odd or I would interpret it that way that nobody heard if there was a a hitting of John. um that nobody physically heard it or him falling onto the ground just because of the circumstances where everybody was inside. Music's going, people are chatting, they're just probably not paying attention to the outside. Uh our next question, um let's actually let's talk about our next poll question, guys. We're going to put a poll up. Um who is doing a better job for the prosecution? The options are trial one, Adam Lai, trial two, Hank Brennan. Uh that's going to be our next poll question in the chat. So get in there and vote and we'll um announce the results of our poll. Uh our next uh question is from um Mirand Miranda Abby um 2022 or 22 is in this day and age Brian Albert a first responder a police officer I find this to be a really interesting question Katherine because I've kind of wondered this myself. Um, in this day and age, Brian Alberta, a first responder, has no security cameras or del doorbell cam. Um, I do I do find that interesting. Um, that he's a Boston police officer. I mean, maybe Canton's just super safe and he feels like he doesn't need it, but that he doesn't have some security cameras like all over the front of his house or something like that. But he's also I mean, there was testimony that the door was front door was unlocked, which kind of kind of surprises me for a police officer leaving his front door unlocked. Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, it's interesting to see about what people kind of posit about, you know, when we look backwards. Is it strange that he doesn't have a camera? Things like that. There was actually testimony in the first trial that um he had Brian Albert had bought for Christmas I believe some sort of um I think it was like a Google lens or some sort of um video surveillance but then they never put it up and never installed it which is you know probably like a lot of us who buy things and sit in the box for you know months on end. Um, but as you said, the front door was open in the middle of the night. Whether that is a reflection of their, you know, relative feeling of security in the house, or maybe it's because they were drinking and, you know, went to bed and forgot to lock the door. You know, it could be both. But, um, you know, it there's a I think there's a fair amount of people on the on the other end who, um, you know, don't always need constant surveillance of everything. Um, and as as often as we see people have them, I don't think it's, you know, standard on every, you know, on every house. So, I don't think that in and of itself is, you know, re really relevant to the case at the end of the day. Yeah. And I could drag Khloe back into this, but I won't. And I'm being I'm just making a joke here. We need a little bit of comic relief in this. Um, but you know, they they did have a a German Shepherd that has been described as maybe not being that friendly, especially when it comes to other dogs. So, I mean, who knows? We we don't know why. Um, maybe that'll come up in later testimony about why the door was unlocked, right? And I mean, and these are the things that, you know, you have to look at the context of who people are in real life. It's it's easy when we see everything through this lens of a trial and what happened one night, but you know, this is a decorated law enforcement office, so he's probably not worried about somebody coming in his house because he can defend himself, you know, and that's what part of the defense is, is that, you know, this is somebody who has those abilities, but that probably, you know, it plays both ways. Yeah, definitely. Uh, well, let's get back to that Google search. um the Google search that Jen McCabe did um on her phone. She she said she opened up Safari on her phone and did this Google search about how long it takes to die in the cold because she claims Karen Reed asked her to do it. So, let's take a listen to Jen McCabe. She just kind of was all over the place. Um and then at one point we saw um them moving John towards the um ambulance. And at that point um Miss Reed started yelling to Miss Robbins, "Go check on him. Are they working on him? Is he is he dead? Is he dead?" And at that point, myself and Miss Reed got out of the car. and um she started yelling and pulling on me to um Google hypothermia and Google how long it takes for somebody, you know, to die in the cold. When the defendant first asked you to Google an inquiry about hypothermia, were you still inside the police cruiser or were you outside? Um outside. What was the weather? I know it's an obvious question, but how cold was it? Um it was very cold, windy, the snow was blowing. Um as I stated, I have um multiple scerosis. So when I am out in either extremely hot or cold temperatures, I lose um the feeling and sensation in my fingers. Um which obviously made the googling very hard for me to do because of my, you know, motor skills. So when you were outside of the car with the defendant and she had asked you to do a search regarding hypothermia, did you try to do that? Yes, I did. Do you know the exact time from your memory? Not from reading or learning, but from your memory. Do you remember the exact time you did that? No. Um, was it after the police came that morning? Yes. Had you ever ever attempted to search about hypothermia any time before that moment? that morning? No. Or that day? No. That week? No. Was this the first time that morning after the defendant asked you to search that you searched that phrase? Yes, it was. And did you complete your search and get a result? So, I think I don't know what came up because I think as I entered it, I don't I think I misspelled things. Um, and so then I think I tried a second search. Um, and again, I don't think I even paid attention to what came up because we were already on to the next thing. Karen was already moving and screaming about, you know, the next thing to carry. They were So, Katherine, she lays it all out right there. Jen McCabe does about how this search came about. Um, how she probably did the HOS, you know, the typo. She's got the MS and her fingers can can lock up depending on the temperature. I is this going to be enough for the jury? Because they're going to have to wonder, did she do this search at 2:27 and then again at 623 and 624 and at both times did she do the same typo? So ultimately that's the question and and that goes to you know whether I mean it all comes down to whether they find Jen McCabe credible or not, right? And you know, it's interesting that the Commonwealth, the order of the witnesses that they used was Annne Whiffin, then followed by by Jen McCabe, because what they're trying to what the Commonwealth is trying to tell the jury is, you know, here's the expert who analyzed the data and he says there's no way it happened at at 2:27. It happens at 6:30. And then here you have Jen McCabe called by the Commonwealth to say, right, it happened at 6:30, 6:24. um because you know we were in the middle of chaos. We just found John. We got in the back of the um the car and we Googled it and then we didn't even look because then we were just you know you know a chaotic scene. So that's the question is do you believe really two witnesses one um the uh celebr um who will testify that it happened at 227. So you have to weigh whether um one of those experts is more reliable than the other. And then the second piece of information is whether they find Jen McCabe's explanation as to why she says it was at 6:30 and not at 227. So these are all the questions that ultimately go down to, you know, this is what the jury is there for. These are people who aren't looking at, you know, information that's on the internet or other public dockets or what was litigated prior to this. They're just looking at each p piece of evidence and deciding not only on the credibility, but if they find it credibil credible, we'll wait to give it in and making their ultimate determination. And I do think that the the Google time search, it is quite pivotal because if the jury does not believe that it was at 227, you know, things start to sort of fall apart from there. Yeah, I I would agree with you on that for sure. Uh let's uh kind of switch gears now, but before we do, I want to let everybody know that court should be back in session at about 1:45. Uh the judge said they were going to take about a 45minute lunch break, so we're keeping um an eye on that. We're monitoring court, so just hold tight. We will get you back into court as soon as it resumes or as it's coming back. Um, and just to let everybody know, we have our poll question up um that was asking whether or not who was doing a better job for the Commonwealth this time around. Was it um Lai in the first trial or Brennan in the second? And so far, our poll results are Brennan um is winning that poll with 2.4,000 V votes. And uh he's winning that poll handily. So um pretty good. Uh I'm afraid I'm afraid of the numbers, Phil. Yeah. Yeah. and we we'll just say that Brennan's winning handily. Um it's just been a it's just been a more streamlined presentation. So I think you know this is just what happens. You get a new set of eyes on something and the guy's been trying cases for a really long time. Uh let's go now. We're going to switch gears. Um let's talk ARCA. We had a big hearing on Monday. It got pretty contentious with Dr. Wolf and uh there were some questions about whether or not ARCA was going to be allowed to testify because of what Judge Canon called deliberate discovery violations. There were like a hundred text messages that had not been turned over to the Commonwealth by the defense. These were messages between um Alan Jackson and Dr. Wolf. The judge said it was deliberate. Uh Dr. Wolf gets up out there on the stand and he says, "Well, I switched carriers. I went back and tried to get text messages and then they weren't there. Uh I couldn't get the text messages back because I switched carriers and then he said he did delete the stuff because uh after the first trial I didn't need it. And then he talks about signal. They're communicating over signal about logistics. Katherine um a lot of people were saying this is much to do much to do about nothing that the judge is going to let ARCA in no matter what. Um and so that's what ended up happening. Let's take a look um if we could at Judge Canon issuing her ruling yesterday. Um but when she did it, she kind of let the defense know. Uh she wasn't happy. So let let's take a look at what she had to say and we'll talk about it on the other side. Mr. Lassie, I only have one question for you. So would you stand please? You're arguing this, right? This was your motion. So my question is, how do I reconcile the fact that 100 text messages were deleted by council and we heard yesterday council's preferred method of dealing with Dr. Wolf was via signal. How do we reconcile that with the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15? I don't see how you reconcile that where all correspondence related to the matter whether in physical or electronic form must be saved for 10 years minimum. How do you reconcile that? How do I reconcile that? I'm going to uh should I go to the podium right there? And I expect a short answer. The short answer, your honor, is the rule that you're citing has absolutely no applicability to this proceeding for the Can I finish my answer, your honor? Right ahead. has no applicability. That rule is intended to be between an attorney and the client. The court has no jurisdiction to enforce that rule. I agree. I agree. That's a different body, but I'm asking you how I reconcile that when I'm trying to figure this out. Mr. Lesie, you know what? You're going to win this. So, why don't you just let me make my ruling? Okay. So, I understand there have been repeated violations of the reciprocal discovery orders and my orders, repeated and deliberate. But, and Mr. Brennan, I understand completely the Commonwealth's argument completely the ambush that um has been set upon here. However, a defendant's right to a fair trial is paramount to everything. So, I'm going to allow the AA witnesses to testify. I am going to allow what I expect to be a very robust cross-examination. Uh, and I'm going to allow them to testify to everything that they said up until yesterday. So, they've you'll get the report May 7th. And I know that's late. And if you need anything as a result of that being late, I'll hear you on whatever motion you have. But that's where we stand. And I expect council to comply with all rulings and rules of the court and all rules of professional conduct and no more nonsense. Let's just try this case. All right, that's it. I'll see you tomorrow. Katherine, the defense may have won that motion, but wow. Uh I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of winning that motion. Your thoughts? Well, I I think she from my perspective, she was always going to allow them in. You know, there's such a substantial part of Karen Reed's defense that dep to deprive her of that right, you know, and ultimately they started out as independent, you know, third party witnesses. I think there's a real question about what the nature of the relationship was, you know, through the sort of end of the first trial until current day. And I think from Judge Con's perspective, you know, she's previously ruled on the record that there was deliberate misrepresentations about the nature of the relationship, um, you know, violations of the candid to the court. And so I think she really, you know, even though this was probably always going to be the end result, allowed some leeway in, you know, attorney Brennan questioning Dr. Wolf. It was a very aggressive cross-examination, you know, and and I think from the comm perspective, they believe that aka and the defense in whatever perspective is hiding information and um you know, it's one of these difficult u decisions that has to be made by the court because I think you know there there is an argument a legitimate argument from the comm's perspective but you have to balance that and and weigh those interests between you know what's the comm's right to discover recovery and what's the defendant's right to put on a case. Um and so she what she did is you know verbally basically um advis them that she thinks it's a violation but nonetheless is going to allow them to testify. So um you know we call that splitting the baby. Yeah. I mean she definitely split the baby but she she basically called out the defense though. I mean, she's she's not happy, but she you know, Karen Reed is entitled to a fair trial as anybody else is, but you know, obviously Canon said no more nonsense. So, she believes there's been some nonsense going on. Yes, she she does. And I think particularly because after the initial sanctions hearing and you know, there were you know, there's a long history in there about what she found were willful misrepresentations to the court by um defense council. And so I think she believes, you know, based on her ruling yesterday is that these are additional violations, but nonetheless in the balancing of the interests, she allows them to come in. Yeah. Um let's uh look at our last poll um that we had put up. Our last poll was, do you think Judge Canon is a credible judge? And 78% of the 2.1,000 voters said no. Um, I find that to be amazing given the fact that I feel like Judge Canon, you know, has been I mean I she seems like some of the things she has done has that she has done has surprised me, but I don't know. It seems like she's pretty fair. I mean, do you what's her reputation up there in the legal community, Katherine? Does she have a reputation as being a fair judge? I mean, she was when she practiced a defense attorney. She was she was a and not only a defense, she was a lifelong public defender. So she spent, you know, trying homicides and, you know, defending um individuals, you know, poor indig individ indigent um individuals in the criminal system in Massachusetts for I think she practiced somewhere, you know, 20 25 years or so before getting on the bench. And um generally on the defense side, if you have Judge Canon um uh assigned to your case, that's considered a fairly good draw. Um you know, because it I think it's again sort of the nature of what this case has become and what social media and sort of the out outside perspective. You know, if you look at each of their individual rulings, you know, there are always going to be some that go one side or some that go the other. it's actually the what you want is the judge that seems to be in the middle. And I know that's not the feel that people um you know get online watching the case. But I do think some of that, you know, that feeling towards the 78% of people saying she's not um you know, reliable or fair in this case is because they've really picked a side and some of the rulings go against that side. The question ultimately becomes, are those rulings consistent with the law? And they are. She's been upheld in numerous appeals um you know both in state court and all the way up to the United Supreme Court um and and her rulings are largely consistent with what the case law is in Massachusetts. So you know I I think she she certainly is has been frustrated with the defense more than the Commonwealth. Um I think that's clear. Um, but in terms of her legal rulings, um, she's she's pretty good. And, you know, as a defense attorney, she knows what it's like to be on that side of the courtroom. Um, so she knows what the obligations are. So, I would, um, point that out, too. Um, so when she says no more nonsense, she knows that if she were in their shoes, she would be obligated to be turning over these communications. And you know, the whole thing about chatting on Signal about logistics probably is like a big question mark to her. Um, so Karen Reed, we're told, just entered the courthouse um just in the last couple of minutes. So I think that that tells us that we should be getting back uh into court very very soon. Uh let's get uh to more of our questions here. Asia Jana asks, "What would be the motive for the officers?" And I think um you know that's a question that a lot of people have. What would be the motive for these officers to frame Karen Reed? Um obviously you know the conspiracy in this case the theory on the part of the defense is that John O'Keefe was beat up in the house and then I guess Khloe the dog was involved in this in some respect uh hurting John O'Keefe's arm and then whatever happened happened. He, you know, the defense said in opening statement, he died in a warmer place and then was moved out to the lawn. Um, and so that's the theory that that I guess they beat him up, the dog attacked him, he died, and they moved him out to the lawn. And I guess it snowed on him. Uh, so I guess the motive would be to to, you know, to frame Karen Reed to get themselves out of trouble, right? And I I think the hard part for you know you don't have to prove that the combo for their case doesn't have to prove motive and certainly as part of your defense um even though you're pointing the finger at somebody else you don't have to prove why anything. Um but it's still a question that's always less left left with the jury just like as it is your listeners um that people wonder why would not only the the individuals in the house you know Brian Albert Brian Higgins who are police officers but then also you know Michael Proctor and the Canton police and the state police why would they engage in you know framing of Karen Reed and I you know the first trial really what we heard was because they're all sort of this close-knit, you know, police association, you know, back each other, you know, we're brothers, that kind of thing. But we didn't hear an explicit motive or explanation as to why somebody like Michael Proctor would, you know, smash a tail light and plant evidence. Um, and and that's one of those difficult things about presenting sort of this third party culprit theory as opposed to just focusing on, you know, the the poor investigation and reasonable doubt that way because, you know, as you're trying to convince the jury of your theory, which is that this um fight happened inside and John was beat up and put out on the lawn, you have to then, you know, account for explaining to the jury like, well, why would those people go all the the way to, you know, cover up for Karen and how would they get the police in on it with them. It almost creates more questions by drawing in this third party um culprit theory. So, it's a it's a difficult balance that the defense has to walk in and sort of trying to get the jury to believe without really fully explaining why they would do this. Um, you know, outside of I guess a sense of camaraderie to each other um in in you know, these local connections. Uh, Zenpal has our next question. Why would her lawyers advise her not to testify if she's innocent? What could happen? Uh, we don't know if she'll testify in this trial. Uh, this is a different trial now. The ball game has changed because her interview statements are coming in and they're being played for the jury. So, uh, why would they tell her not to testify if she's innocent? Katherine, I mean, generally the advice from councel is always not to testify because as we can see, you know, we have snippets of statements from multiple witnesses, you know, Carrie Roberts, some of the EMTs, Jen McCabe, we have statements on film from Karen Reed, and each of those statements are now being used in ways and maybe those individuals didn't intend them to be used. And what would happen if Karen Reed got on the stand is she'd be confronted with all of these statements and some of them can certainly be made to be out to be inconsistent along the line. And you know in given her interviews with um you know the different organizations, the different media outlets, she was able to you know tell her side of the story, but she didn't have to be subject to any real questioning from an adverse party. And you know when you have an individual who has is not only charged with a crime of this magnitude but then has you know as your client has spoken and given numerous interviews. It's just it's just fodder for the government to use and to get them to to trip up. Anybody would trip up, you know, having given this many interviews. So, um I think their advice will likely be along um the general advice that most attorneys give clients that unless you absolutely have to, unless it's a case of self-defense and you're the only one who can explain, you know, the alternate theory, um you usually stay off the sand. Uh we have our next poll question. Um people, we asked people, do you think John O'Keefe was beat up that night? Um 83% of the people thus far in the poll are saying yes. Um so we'll see how this comes out in the testimony uh as the trial progresses. Um our next question is from Maria B. Did the Emmy determine that John O'Keefe was not hit by a car? Well, we haven't heard from the medical examiner in this, you know, the retrial yet. Um but in the last trial, you know, she she wouldn't say I mean, she wouldn't say it was a it was an she came up with an undetermined manner of death. Um the medical examiner or the forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy in the first trial. That's right. And you know there there's different obviously there was a manner of death that was determined was um hypothermia and injury to the back of the head blunt force injury but the you know the the medical examiner is not in the position to form an opinion as to how the you know the injuries occurred because she doesn't have that information in front of her. I mean it's really if you think about it more of a legal determination. you know, the police are saying to um the medical examiner's office like there was a vehicle here and we've charged someone, but can the medical examiner independently come to that conclusion? Likely not. And so that's why it was left undetermined as opposed to um homicide or anything else. Okay. Yeah. Um, and it'll be interesting to see how that testimony comes out in this trial, especially um, now that we'll have a new prosecutor and other expert testimony. Uh, let's get to some other questions. Um, Rosie D asks, "We know from previous trials the jury paid attention to defendant body language or or previous trials, I should say. Uh, we know the jury pays attention to defendant body language and facial expressions. is do we think her demeanor will go against her? Uh, so we we know from the investigation discovery um body in the snow docue series that Karen Reed was very cognizant of how she appeared on camera. She talked about that in that series. She didn't want to appear um cold or uncaring and so she's very cognizant of how she appears in front of the jury. So, uh do we think her demeanor will um go against her? Uh this is the question because she um you know was kind of scowlling yesterday. There were some comments on social media about that when Jen McCabe was on the stand. There were some comments that she was scowlling. You know, I I think it's it's really difficult because as a defendant, you know, you're sitting there day after day after day and part of sort of the role you have to play is um not only of criminal defendant, but of um you know, the an individual who lost somebody in your life. So, everybody's looking at Karen Reed to say, you know, is she reacting the right way? Is she not reacting the right way? And whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's human nature, right? We all look at people. We all look at what their reactions are. I think that, you know, that there was some discussion, you know, I talked about it on my page quite a bit about, you know, the the idea that she she really sort of looks like one of the lawyers at the table for much of the testimony of a number of witnesses. She didn't even really look up very much. She was on her laptop the whole time. Um, but as you pointed out, you know, when there seems to be more of, you know, civilian witness, maybe some someone with of more a personal connection to the case, um, she pays a little bit more attention. And those are all things that the jury is going to be picking up on. What they take from that, you know, we don't know, but they're certainly very aware of, you know, her behavior with which witness, how she acts, things like that. Those are things they're paying attention to. Yeah, definitely. I'm sure they are paying attention to Karen Reed's demeanor and everything. I mean, they're told they're supposed to consider what comes in uh from the witness stand. That's the evidence they're supposed to consider, but you're right. It's human nature. I'm sure they are observing her and and how she's acting in the um in the courtroom. Uh what would the be what would be the motive? This is from Asia Jana. What would be the motive for Jen and Carrie to go against Karen? I don't I'm not sure that it's I'm not sure that it's been made clear by the defense. I think from their perspective, you know, it all stems from the motivation for I think from the defense perspective for Jen and Carrie to be lying to, you know, officers to um you know, sort of come up with this whether it was, you know, implanted from Jen McCabe to Carrie Roberts, this idea that potentially Karen hit him and you know, so this two against one, it really ultimately relies on this underlying theory about, you know, that Jon was killed in the house that John went in the house and was killed in the house. And as a result of that, this need for Jen McCabe to not only, you know, um, convince Karen that she hit John, but also to convince Carrie Roberts. So, I think from the defense perspective, the way they're trying to present it is that Carrie Roberts was sort of this unwilling victim and that she's just been sort of, you know, under the um the watchful eyes of Jen McCabe. Again, whether that's persuasive to the jury, I don't know. It it might be. We haven't heard all of the evidence. We haven't even heard the defense present the case themselves. But, um, again, these are the things that despite not having to prove the reason why, people always want, everybody always wants a why. They want to know why would Jen McCab and Carrie Roberts go against Karen? And if there's not an explanation to that or a reasonable one, you know, they might end up dismissing it. That's a good point. Um, so let's get to our next question. And neither one of us are medical professionals, but I kind of have my own theory about this. Uh, this is from Kinjun B31. And guys, I just want to remind you court should be uh coming back into session momentarily. Um, but this question asks, why was John O'Keefe's body temperature 80 degrees if he had been outside in the freezing cold for six hours? Well, your body temperature normally, you know, they say normal is 98.6°. So, if his body temperature was 80°, that's a drop of 18.6 degrees. That's a pretty significant drop. Um, so I I mean, I'm I'm not a medical doctor. Um, I only used to host a medical radio show and we never really addressed this, but that that seems like a pretty significant drop in body temperature, 80°. um even if you're out there for six hours. So I I think they're wondering why his body temperature wasn't lower. And I guess a medical doctor would be able to answer that question. I think that's right. I I don't know the answer myself. I mean I I guess the question you would want to um uh or answer you would want to elicit from whatever medical doctor testified as to this is, you know, how low can the body, you know, temperature go? How long did it take? you know, is it something that like we saw the battery temperatures, you know, dropped quickly from, I think, 82 to 77 to 40 in a matter of four to four or five hours, but it it seems obvious that a body probably wouldn't drop that quickly. And you know what the normal if somebody is exposed to the elements, if they're exposed um to you know laying without a jacket on in the cold, how long on average does it take for their body temperature to drop? That's only something that a medical professional could testify to. Yeah. And if if you're out there for 6 hours or, you know, somewhere around that time, um that still seems like a pretty significant drop in body temperature. You if you're laying out there and you are in the elements, um you know, and you're still alive, you know, your body temperature you may be able to maintain for a little bit. I'm not I'm not really sure. Um so it'll be interesting to see if that comes up during the testimony. Um, is is uh let's get to our next question. Uh, why would Karen call the two people that would frame her? It doesn't make sense. This is another question from Asia J. And that goes uh to Carrie uh Roberts and Jen McCabe. I mean, she she called these two women and she called them for a reason, I would assume. I mean, I think she called them because she knew they would, you know, if if you really think about sort of the bigger picture of the case, Jen McCabe and Carrie Roberts are the two women who helped John the most. And so when Karen me Reed needed help, she called those two women, you know, and separately. And even though they didn't know each other, you know, they knew of each other, but um, you know, and so Carrie Roberts doesn't have anything to do with the night before. She's not out with them. she's not drinking, you know, she gets called completely out of the blue. Um, and then Jen McCabe is called separately and then they all meet up, the three of them together. So, I think that's the that's the question that the jury will be asking is why would, you know, what's the likelihood of Karen Reed calling the two women who ultimately would, you know, concoct this story? How did they know, you know, that she would call them? And then they'd be able to sort of guide her to what they wanted her to say. So, those are those are real questions I think that just like u Asia has, the jury will likely have. Um, and our next question comes from Debbie Meadows Lucas. Why did Jen stop speaking with Karen the day after the murder? Jen says she was protecting her the day before. You know, she she did testify to that this morning. She said that she had not spoken with her um since the 29th of January. So, so something happened where she just cut off contact. Um, do we do you have a feeling about why maybe she stopped talking to her? Well, there there likely will be some testimony. Um, I it hasn't come in in yet, but it came in the first trial and I expect that it will come in again. Um, that you know, there's probably a couple of reasons. One is um Karen Reed's phone was taken on um January 29th by uh the state police later in the afternoon. So there was no communication going out from Karen Reed to anybody else. Um, but I think I think the what the comm it wasn't very clear in that line of questioning because it could have maybe been elicited a little bit um more information. But I think what the comm was trying to point out was that you know despite the fact that she called Jen McCabe and Carrie Roberts for help and you know takes the position that she didn't do this that she you know never reached out to them again didn't come around the O'Keefe's again anything like that and I think the Commonwealth wants their goal in eliciting that information is they want the jury to think that that's because she knew she hit him and you know that's that came up in the last trial too that she didn't Karen Reed didn't go to John O'Keefe's funeral. Um she kind of went and got went back to Meadows, got her stuff, left and never really reached out again. Um so she wasn't kind of grieving with the family and that was really a point the Commonwealth tried to make. That's right. And I and I think, you know, it didn't come in um at trial, but we do know that she didn't um Oh, maybe it might have come in in the first trial that she didn't go to the funeral at that point. She was already clearly the suspect of the case. So, you know, I don't um I don't know how appropriate it would have been for her to go to the funeral at that point. Um, but I think the the general sort of um testimony that they want the jury to focus on and probably will come in if Aaron O'Keefee testifies again is that, you know, despite the fact that that morning they didn't really know what was going on or, you know, nobody was quite blaming anybody yet while they were still trying to figure it out that she essentially just Karen Reed just essentially sort of cut off all ties and never spoke to anybody again. Um, you know, but I but I also think that can be attributed to the fact that, you know, as of Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon, her phone and her vehicle will be seized. You know, she obviously knew she was um, you know, the target of suspicion. So, you you probably would upon the advice of your counsel not contact anybody. Yeah, most definitely. Uh, let's get to our um, Sweet Paradise No Love. Uh, what time did Reed leave? 34 Fair View. Um, well, she left. It was sometime um, around 12:30ish. Um, you know, it was somewhere in that ballpark uh, that they believe she left. We'll probably hear some testimony um about that later in the trial, especially when they talk about the data collected from her vehicle. That's right. So, we haven't heard yet in trial number two um when the Commonwealth places her, you know, leaving from 34 to go back to Meadows, but that will likely come in through um whoever is going to testify about the Lexus data that has been uh retrieved. And that'll be a little bit different than the first trial because the um the chip has been re-examined and apparently there's more information on there. So we might have a better idea um of what the Commonwealth says is is the you know more specifics of the timeline than we heard trial one. Uh next question comes from Chris Mass. Is it possible he was hit by the car and possibly dragged a foot or two to make those injuries to his arm? I guess anything's possible, but he did have that shirt on. Um, and you know, you would think that would create some kind of barrier. Yeah, I mean, it's certainly possible. That's the difficult thing about this is that for as much as they, you know, want to recreate the scene and be able to pinpoint, oh, it was the tail light. Oh, it was the glass. Oh, it was the undercarriage. I I I think there's realistically nobody can actually opine as to what the most likely possibility was. But um you know, so it'll be interesting to see. Catherine, I thank you so much. I was just about to interrupt you, but you ended right on time. We got to get back into court. So um the cross-examination of uh Jed McCabe is resuming. Thanks for being here. Thanks everybody. We'll see you back here another time. Let's get back into court. All right. Sorry about the delay, jurors. We told that we blew a fuse and that's why we couldn't get started on time. So, um, these old courouses. So, all right. We appreciate your patience. Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. Thank you, your honor. Um, Miss McCabe, when you first saw Miss Reed's SUV pull up, very shortly thereafter, you sent a text to John O'Keefe. Correct. I um walked to the door, saw the car, and that's when I sent him a text. Yes. Right. So, you walked up to the door, saw the SUV outside, and then texted him something at that basically while you're standing at the door, I believe. So, yes. What did you text him here? Okay. Uh, that was Do you remember the time? I don't know. Uh, would it refresh your recollection if you were to look at a series of of text messages contained in a celebrate report? I think you've seen this before. Sure. May I approach your honor? Yes. Thank you. May I ask one foundational question before I give this to the witness? M. McCabe, I'm going to ask you about a series of text messages. Uh it's not a memory contest uh on in terms of the timing. I'm going to ask you about probably five or so. All of those purport to be contained in here. Do you remember the times of those five texts? I don't off the top of my head. Do you think it would refresh your recollection to look at all those uh in one failed swoop as you look at this document so I don't have to go back and forth? Are these in evidence? This is not in evidence to my knowledge. Not yet. Did it help you to remember? Yeah. Okay. Why don't you bring it to Miss Kate? Thank you. Thank you. This is just my Yeah, I just I might turn to M. McKe, if you wouldn't mind, take a look at the tabs. Not that whole document. Two days. take a look at the tabs and go in reverse chronological order and see if that refreshes your recollection about the time and content of text messages that you sent to Mr. O'Keefe those early morning that that early morning uh of January 29th. Okay. Yes, Mayor. Yes. Thank you. I'm not going to have to remember the exact times of all five. Am I? I'll help. Okay. Thank you, Miss McCabe. Um, did you see a text on here that was consistent with your memory that you texted here? Yes. And was that at 12:14? I'm sorry, at 12:27 a.m. I don't know exactly. I'm assuming if it's on that paper. If I may have just a moment, your honor, why don't I see cons for just a minute? Miss McCabe, we're going to make it a little easier for you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. May I? Yes. Your honor, I would offer the following stipulation at 121427 on January 29th, 2022. Text message from Jen McCabe to I'm sorry, check text message from John O'Keefe's phone to Jen McCabe's phone. Where to? At 122. All these are on January 29th, 2022. at 12:2733. From Jennifer McCabe's phone to John O'Keefe's phone here, exclamation point, question mark. Same date, 1231 and 47 seconds. From Jin McCabe's phone to John O'Keefe's phone, pull behind me. Same date, 12:40 and 31 seconds. from Jen McCabe's phone to John's John O'Keefe's phone. Hello. 12:42 and 9 seconds. Text message from Jennifer McCabe's phone to John O'Keefe's phone. Where are the letter U? Okay, thank you. Finally, 12:45 and 53 seconds from Jen McCabe's phone to John O'Keefe's phone. Hello. I would offer the stipulation that those are correct times and dates and contents of the text messages between John O'Keefe's phone and Jennifer McCabe's phone on January 29th, 2022. All right. And that's what you're agreeing to, Mr. Brennan? Yes, your honor. It's contained in the Cell Bright report. Okay. All right, folks. So, I told you yesterday about a stipulation when I talked about something in the pipeline. This is similar. So, what you just heard, both lawyers agree that that's information contained in a celebrate report. Thank you, your honor. May I continue? Yes. At some point, you indicated that uh and by the way, Miss McCabe, at 12:27, it's now been stipulated to. You texted a single word uh here exclamation point, question mark. Correct? Yes. Okay. You indicate that you saw the SUV move up after it was in front of the 34 Fair View residents. It moved up some number of feet. Correct. The next time I looked, it was at a different location. Right. Uh, now you did not see the white jeep move from the place that you originally saw it in front of the mailbox. Correct. I never looked it out at the white jeep. But you never saw that move ever? No. As a matter of fact, Mr. Higgins, that Jeep was in the same spot while Mr. Higgins was inside the residence until he left. Correct. That's what I would assume. Yes. Okay. Um and you never saw him go out and move his car and come back in or anything like that. I never did. No. After you um It's fair to say that once you noted that the SUV, Miss Reed's SUV was in front of the location, you started paying some attention to it. I went to the door a few times to look out. Yes. As a matter of fact, in the course of about 19 minutes, you went to the door no fewer than five times. Correct. I'm not sure if it was five. You've indicated in uh previously that for every time you went to the door and saw the SUV, you texted something which are the text contained in the document that was just stipulated to. Is that right? I did text five times. You are correct. Okay. So, it's fair to say if you texted five times, then you went to the door five times. If those were associated with one another, you walked up, look out the door, see the SUV, and text something here. Pull behind me. Uh, where are you? Those texts, correct? I remember going to the front door, um, seeing the car and texting here. When I went to the door the second time, the car had moved out towards the flag pole and I texted um pull behind me because I thought, did they not know where to park? Did they think they were at the wrong house? So my my question is this. Every time you went to the door, you texted something. I'm not sure that I did. Yes. I'm not sure that I did. Sorry. Do you remember a year ago testifying that um every single time you texted you indicated that you looked out in the at the SUV and saw something that prompted you to text something? Am I aware that I said that? Correct. That you testified to that. Could you show that to me, please? Sure. Thank you. May I your honor? Yes. Take a look at the highlight portion and just read that to yourself. Let me know when you're finished. Okay. May I? Yes. M. McCabe, does that refresh your recollection about the issue we were just talking about? I see what's on what's written down. Yes. Okay. Did you testify in answer to the following question? And as a matter of fact, you looked every single time that you texted, you indicated that you looked out at the SUV and saw something that prompted you to text something. Correct. Answer correct. I answered correct to that. Yes. So, if you looked out I'm sorry. If you texted five times, that's all I'm getting to. You went to the door about five times. I'm not sure. I remember definitely going twice. Um, and again, if I misstated or I said I went five times, four times, I apologize. Well, do you think this testimony is an error? No, I don't. I'm thinking with my memory, um, it was 3 years ago and I'm thinking that maybe I wasn't clear on that detail of how many times that I went to the door. What I can tell you I'm clear on is that I did go twice and I saw it. I saw it straight ahead. I saw it at the flag pole and a third time further up. I cannot say with with certainty with my memory today that I was up at that door every single time. I'm sorry. And then and by the way, when you testified as you just saw that was a year ago, correct? A year a year earlier and a year closer to the event. Correct. Yes, it was. Your memory would have been a little bit fresher then than it is now, a year later. I don't think I can compare my memory then to now. You can't compare your memory. Do you think your memory gets better with time or um with time? Um well, some things unfortunately I think about every single day with this case, the trauma of it and what I experienced and went through. Um and there are some things that I am certain I will never forget. Um, and I know for sure where the car was, and I know for sure I sent those two texts, but I apologize if I misstated I went out more than I did. Um, I'm just trying to give you what I remember. Um, today, let's talk about those texts and the and you looking out the door. You did approach the door and you saw that the vehicle was there the initial time, correct? That's one when I texted here. Yes. And you texted here, exclamation point, question mark. Is that right? Correct. And you indicated that when you first saw the vehicle, it was straight out ahead of you um in the front in front of the front door and it was stationary. Is that right? Yes. Yes. Then you said you went back to the door and you saw that it had it had moved up quote a little bit. Isn't that right? Yes. Toward the flag pole. Is that right? Was that the flag pole? Yes. And as it when you saw that it had moved up toward the flag pole, then you texted again at 12:40, which has been stipulated to hello. Is that right? Um, when I saw it move up to the flag pole, I believe I texted pull behind me. when you when you went the second time. Um, and by the way, it's my mistake. I got the uh I I jumped over one. It was 123147 which we stipulated to pull behind me. That's when that the SUV was up closer to the flag pole. Correct. I believe so. Yes. Then you went yet again at 12:40 and saw the SUV yet again and texted hello. There's the second hello. I'm not sure if that was when I texted hello, but you did see that the SUV had moved again. Yes. Now, where was it? At first it was straight ahead. Then it was at the flag pole. And then it was further up. Then at at 12:42, 2 minutes later, you texted, "Where are you?" Correct. Yes. Okay. At that point, it was still up by the flag pole. No, I'm not saying that. It was still outside. Where was it? I'm not sure where the vehicle was. At 12:45, you texted yet again. Hello. Is that right? Yes, I did. You indicated that that was You texted hello the last time you saw the vehicle. Is that right? I'm not saying that today. No. Well, did you say it previously in my testimony? Did I say that the last time I texted? Do you have that written that I could see? You just read it. Well, that was your question that you had read to me. I never came out and said that. Miss McC asked you if you testified to that a year ago. That's my question. Did you testify to that a year ago that when you went every single time you went to the door, you texted something because uh seeing the vehicle prompted you to text something to tell? That's a summary of maybe the Did you testify to that a year ago? To what? That that when I went to the door? Yeah. Different times when I went to the door, I did tax. Yes. And then you testified as well that you went to the door a final time and saw that the SUV was gone. It had left. Correct. Yes. At one point I did. Okay. And that was just a couple of minutes after your last text at 12:45. Is that right? I'm not sure of the time. Matter of fact, you've testified previously that it was around 12:50 that you first I'm sorry, that you last went to the door and noted that the car was completely gone. Is that right? I'm not sure of that. I You're not sure of that? No. If you could show me, I'd appreciate it. At some point, did you note that the vehicle was gone? Let's get to that. Yes. Around what time was that? I do not know. 12:45. A little before, a little after. I'm not sure. I can't give a time. Would it refresh your recollection to look at how you testified to that that particular time last year? Sure. May I? Yes. Thank you. The highlighted portion. Yes. Mr. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection as to what time last year you indicated that you went to the door and saw that the SUV was gone? It says on the paper that I was asked if after 12:45 it was gone and I answered correct. Okay. I never gave it time. All right. And that coincides with the last hello that you texted to John's phone. Correct. Again, I don't have that paper in front of me. Is that the Well, that's the stipulation. That's what you you don't need to worry about that. That's been stipulated to your last hello text was at 12:45. Okay. Okay. So, that coincides that testimony from last year coincides with your last text message saying hello. You noted that the SUV at that point had gone. It was left. Correct. Correct. So, if I hear your testimony correctly, you saw the SUV in position one. Yes. There was a text or something or two, maybe. Then you saw it in position two. You went back to the door and noted that SUV had moved and it was now closer to the flag pole. Correct. Well, you've just asked two questions. It had moved closer to the flag. First question is you said I saw it and I sent a text or two. I know I just said one here. Okay. Then you saw it a second time. Correct. And now it's closer to the flag pole. Yes. Correct. And there's texting going on. I'm not getting down to to the minute of the text, but there's texting going on. You're sending texts. I'm sending. Yes. Okay. Then you went back to the door a third time and saw that it had moved beyond the flag pole. Correct. Correct. Then according to your testimony last year, you went back to the door at least a fourth time to see that it was gone. Correct. I believe so. Yes. Okay. So, at the at bare minimum, based on your testimony today, you were at the door looking out the window at that portion of either the yard directly in front of you and in front of the house or toward the flag pole or beyond the flag pole four times. Correct. From last year's testimony, but what I remember today. You need to let her answer the question. Answer your question, please. Go ahead. Okay. Um, what I remember certainty is looking at it fre out front at the flag pole and beyond. I don't remember how many times I went up to the door. I was back and forth. Right. But according to you, you saw the car in three different positions. Correct. Correct. So that's at least three times through the door. Correct. Correct. And you saw the car gone, right? Correct. 3 + 1 is four. Correct. Correct. So now you're telling us that you went to the door a minimum of four times and looked across that yard at the SUV. Correct. Correct. Okay. You had a clear view of that SUV as you looked out the the that storm door every time you went to the door, didn't you? It was dark and snowing, but I could see a vehicle out there. Yes. As a matter of fact, you've indicated that it was a clear view. There was nothing obstructing your vision, correct? No, there was nothing but the weather conditions. And you indicated that uh and by the way, the the blizzard had basically just started. There was a dusting on the ground. It was snowing. It was accumulating. Right. But it was early early in the storm. Oh, yes. Absolutely. Right. And when asked about whether or not you had a view, well, let me ask you it a different way. In terms of your view of the SUV and the the uh distance from the storm door to the SUV to that curb line, uh there was nothing obstructing your view. You had a clear view of that. A good view of the SUV. Correct. When I looked out the window, I could see the SUV in front of me. Yes. At no time during any of this interaction with the door, meaning going back and forth to the storm door, texting, looking outside, seeing the SUV in position one, seeing the SUV in position two, seeing the SUV in position three. At no time did you hear anything that any noise that was unusual, did you? No, I didn't. You didn't hear any screaming? No. You didn't hear any yelling? No. No loud voices? No. No foul language? No. You didn't hear a door slam. No. You didn't hear a verbal argument or a fight of any kind. No. You didn't hear a revving engine. No. You didn't hear the squealing of tires or the scraping of tires on the pavement. No. You didn't hear a collision take place. No. Or a crash. No. Or uh screams for help. No. Moaning, groaning as if someone was in distress. No. As you looked at the SUV the first time, you've already indicated that you had a clear view straight out the the door. Right. It's right in front of the front door as a crow flies. Right. It's not at an angle right there. Correct. Okay. You also previously indicated that you saw tire tracks in the roadway. Yes. In that very, very light dusting of snow, the accumulation that you talked about, you saw tire tracks of some sort. Yes. So that's down on the ground beyond the yard somewhere in the roadway in the street. Correct. You had a good view of those tire tracks as well, correct? Yes. As a matter of fact, you were able to describe those as sort of a almost a wave, I think you once said. Yeah. Across the street. I could see it because of the street light that was across the street. Okay. And that presented at least enough illumination based on uh your view. You could see the tire tracks in the snow. Yes. Over to the left. Yes. And you detailed not just the shape of those tire tracks as being sort of like a wave, but where those tire tracks were correct. Like this. Yeah. Where where did you see them? I believe over to the left. If I'm looking out straight. Oh, sorry. Straight. So, if you're looking outside at the SUV, I'm just going to turn my backs to the jurors for a second for perspective. If you're looking outside the door, when you say straight out, the SUV is straight outside. When you say to the left, you mean to the left of the SUV on the ground. That's where you saw the tire. Yes. Like somebody might parallel park or something. Kind of a wave. Yeah. I can't really explain what it was. I just saw it. You weren't paying special attention. You weren't looking for tire tracks, were you? No. When I glanced out, I saw it. You weren't looking for anything in the in the roadway at that at that point. You just glanced out. It was something in your peripheral vision and you made note of it. Yes. And the only thing between you and the SUV as you looked out was the lawn. Correct. There's no ditches or hills in that lawn. It's a flat lawn. Correct. I wasn't looking at the ground. I was just kind of looking like I am at you right now. Straight. You know that lawn. You've been that house 100 times. 500 times. There's no ditches or BMS or hills or mountains on that lawn. It's just a flat lawn, right? I guess you could categorize it as flat. Yeah. Um, can we take a look? May I go on? Yes. Okay. Uh, can you take a look at that? Sure. For a quick second. Tell me if you recognize it. I do. Yes. What do you recognize that as being? Um 34 Fair View. That's the same photograph with just a little modification on it that you saw a few minutes ago. Yes. Your honor, I would ask that that be marked as identification. Um publish not for identification. No. Happy, your honor, if I may. If it's marked for identification, I wouldn't object to showing it. Okay. All right. It's a chalk at this point. Okay. May I publish? Yes. Thank you. H for identification. May I approach? Yes. Thank you. There you go. Mr. W. You may There you go. Thank you. What's depicted in that photograph? 34 Fair View. Do you see the front door that you went in? I do. Yes. Can you point it out for the jurist, please? Sure. Right there. Okay. The one with the brick steps leading up to it? Yes. Now, with this perspective, can you point out the side door? Sure. That looks like a screen door just to the right of the hedges. Yes. With that perspective, can you point out the garage door? or Oh, that one. Sorry. That's just to the right of the window inside that recess of the home. Yes. Okay. Uh and does that fairly and accurately depict the lawn uh as it was on January 28th, 29th? Uh other than the fact that it's different weather, right? The shape of the lawn. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Put that down, Mr. W. So, what was that marked as? Madam court reporter, thank you. Your honor, I would ask to move that in evidence. If we need a to take a minute on that, I'm happy to, but that is my request. Is there an issue? No, I won't object. Okay. 46. Thank you, your honor. May I continue, your honor? Yes. The first time you looked out over that lawn to the SUV, you did not see John O'Keefe, did you? No, I did not. He was not outside that SUV. No, he was not standing or sitting. Not that I saw. He certainly wasn't on the ground, was he? Not that I saw. The second time you looked out and saw the SUV. Now the SUV is more toward the flag pole. Correct. Yes. And you had a clear field of view between you standing at that door and the SUV. You've already described that view. Correct. I can see the SUV. Correct. Correct. And you could see everything in front of the SUV as well, couldn't you? I just would go to the door and look at the SUV. I wasn't um taking in all the surroundings of but just like you weren't taking in the surroundings specifically looking at the tire tracks when you saw the SUV standing sitting right in front of you. You saw them through your peripheral vision you know the tire track. Yes. And that's lighted where around the SUV it was very dark. I didn't ask you about lighting yet. We'll get to that. I'm sorry. Tire tracks even though you weren't looking for tire tracks, right? Yes, I did. Something that stood out to you in your peripheral vision. Look out. There they are. Yes. Absolutely. Mhm. That second time you looked directly at the SUV with no obstruction between you and the SUV, you did not see John O'Keeffe standing outside the SUV. No, he wasn't sitting down. No, he wasn't lying down. No, you certainly did not see his body in the snow toward that flag pole. No. And you would have been looking directly toward that flag pole. Correct. Directly. I was looking at the vehicle. Directly toward the flag pole, Miss McCabe. I was looking in the direction of the flag pole at the vehicle. Yes. Right. And you saw no body in the snow, did you? I didn't look for a body in the snow. I didn't ask you if you looked for one. You weren't looking for tire tracks either, were you? But you saw those. I did see those. Yes. And you did not see a body in the snow? No, I did not. John O'Keefe, 6'2, 216 lbs. Bronny guy. Big boy, right? I don't think I'd refer to him as a big boy, but he was tall. Yes. All right. You certainly didn't see him prostrate in the snow the way you found him the next morning. Correct. Later that morning. I didn't see anything on the ground. No. Correct. The third time you looked out toward that SUV, it's still in the direction of the flag pole, but a little further up, a little deeper to the right. Correct. Yes. Again, looking directly in the in the direction at least of the flag pole and that area of the yard. You were looking beyond that to the SUV. Correct. Yes. You did not see John O'Keefe standing outside the vehicle? I did not. No, he was not sitting outside the vehicle. No. Wow. And he certainly wasn't lying on the ground, was he? I didn't see him. And the last time you looked out, Miss McCabe, this is now 12:45 or so. The last time you looked out, the SUV was gone. Is that right? Yes. But you were still looking in that direction because that's the last place you saw the SUV. Is that right? I looked out the window like this. I wasn't searching anywhere, but just glanced out the window and I didn't see it. I'm just asking you a direction, not whether or not you were searching. I know you didn't send out a search card. That's not my question. My question is, were you looking toward the area where you last saw the SUV around 12:45 a.m.? Yes. That would be directly across the lawn, directly past the flag pole and directly into the street where you last saw the SUV. Correct. I glanced out. Yes. Correct. And the same way you glanced out at the SUV, to use your words, glanced out and saw the tire tracks. Right. Correct. Yes. But you did not see John O'Keefe standing on the lawn. No. You did not see him sitting on the lawn. No. And you certainly did not see his body lying on the lawn, did you? No. No, I did not. Ultimately, you left the location that night, the gathering at 34 Fair View. Uh, is that right? You didn't spend the night there? No, I went home. about what time was it that you left the location? Um, approximately it was after 1:30. Approximately 1:30, 1:45. So, this is maybe an hour later. That later than what we've just been discussing. Yes. Seeing the SUV. Who did you leave with? I left with my husband Matt and Julie Nagel and Sarah Levenson. Who was driving? Sorry. My husband Matt was driving. And where was Sarah Levenson and Julie Nagel sitting in that SUV? They were in the back seat. By the way, what kind of SUV were you in that night? Um, a Yukon. U four-door extended seating. Yes. When the SUV pulled out of the drive, it was in the driveway. Yes. When the SUV backed out of the driveway doing a three-point turn, backed out of the driveway, did it go toward Chapman or did it go toward Cedar Crest? It went towards Chapman. So, as you backed out of the driveway, you would have been heading d toward the flag pole side of the property rather than back toward the driveway side of the property. Correct. Correct. You would have driven directly adjacent to the area where John O'Keefe's body was later discovered at 6:04 6:03 a.m. Correct. Yes. Correct. You were seated in the passenger seat of the vehicle, not the driver's seat. Correct. You were seated in the front of the vehicle, not the back seat. Correct. You would have been closest to the yard as y'all drove B past. Correct. Correct. That's a newer model Yukon. I'm assuming that the headlights automatically turn on at night. Yes. So, the headlights were illuminated. Yes. Did your husband Matt, did he turn on the brights or did he leave the the beams on low or do you know? I don't know. But certainly the area in front of that SUV, that Yukon, was well lit. The lights were on. Yes. You did not see anything out of the ordinary as you drove right by that location. Did you? I was looking in the back seat when we were driving. Did you see anything out of the ordinary on that lawn as you drove by in that SUV? No, cuz I wasn't looking at the lawn. You certainly did not see John O'Keefe dressed in dark clothing laying prostrate in the lawn. No, I did not. You said that you were turned around talking to the other young ladies in the SUV, Julie Nagel and Sarah Levenson. Is that right? Yes. You indicated that you were engaged with them about a conversation having to do with bread and maybe peanut butter or something? Yes. You didn't, as you passed by that location adjacent to where John's body was later discovered, you didn't hear Julie Nagel say anything out of the ordinary about having seen something. No. You didn't hear Sarah Levenson say anything out of the ordinary about having seen something? No. And according to you, you were turned around directly engaged with both these young ladies as you passed by that area where John's body was later discovered. Is that right? When we pulled out, I turned around and I was talking to them about the bread and the peanut butter. I'm not sure exactly where we were driving, but it was when we pulled out. Yes. You certainly never heard any anybody say anything like, "What was that?" or anything close to that. No, I didn't. I'd like to turn your attention to your arrival back at 34 Fair View just after 6:00 a.m. the next morning. You indicate that the visibility was relatively poor and that you could not see John O'Keeffe on that lawn from your perspective. Correct. It was the visibility was extremely poor and no I could not see him. You were in the front seat passenger side. Yes, I was. It was Karen Reed who actually saw Mr. O'Keefe, jumped out of the car and began attending to him immediately. Correct. Karen got out of the car and ran to John O'Keefe. And you stayed by the car and Miss Roberts ran over to assist Miss Reed in giving first aid to init at least initially to Mr. O'Keefe. Is that right? No, that is not. Carrie got out and walked over and then I got out and walked over. You indicated that. Well, let me ask a different question. Yesterday, you testified in pretty pretty significant detail that when you got out of the car, you could not see anything even close to the flag pole. Correct. Visibility was very bad. Yes. Matter of fact, you used the word white out conditions. Is that right? Yes, I did. White out conditions. You basically can't see your hand in front of your face. I wouldn't say that extreme, but I used white out as there's just snow coming at you. You were as specifically asked by Mr. Brennan, how close did you have to get before you could actually see anything of note where Miss Reed had gone? Is that right? Yes. You testified yesterday that you could see just merely shadowy figures of Miss Reed and Carrie Roberts. And it wasn't until you got very close over to them that you could see John in your words. Correct. As a matter of fact, you followed that up by saying that that was the first moment once you got basically on top of them. That was the first moment that you realized that it was John that there was a body on the ground. Correct. I said as I got close to them, I don't think on top of them. Fair enough. It's my words, not yours. You did say, quote, very close to them. Correct. I'd have to see it, but Well, you just testified to it yesterday. Do you remember saying I get very close to them? I know. I said I had got very close to them or close to them. Something like that. Yes. Mhm. I don't have a transcript of yesterday's testimony. I'm sorry. Um, last year you testified to something very different than that though, didn't you? No. Isn't it true that last year you testified that you were you got out on the passenger side of the vehicle which is we'll agree the furthest side from the lawn as Miss Roberts was driving toward from Chapman toward Crest View. Is that uh sorry Cedar Crest? Correct. Yes. You testified that you were on the passenger side and as you got out of the vehicle, you noted that Karen Reed was already at John. Is that right? As I got out and walked around the back of the vehicle, the shadowy figure of Karen had already gotten onto something. You further testified that as you got out of the vehicle, you noted that she straddled John, lifted up his shirt, lifted up her shirt and went to lay on and Miss Roberts went over and said she would and she was started removing John Snow from John's face. Correct. I have the page in line number. Where are you, Mr. Jackson? May 17, 2024. RT 114 lines 14 to bottom onto 115 line four. Is that how you testified last year? I'm sorry. Would you mind just repeating it? Sure. Thank you. You testified in substance that you were on the passenger side of the vehicle and as you got out quote as I got out end quote she miss Reed was already at John you indicated that you saw her straddle him lift up his shirt lift up her shirt and lay on top of him while Miss Roberts went over and removed snow from his face. That's how you testified last year. Correct. Is that how you testified last year? I'm not sure. I know. Next question. Would it refresh your recollection if you were looking at a copy of your testimony from last year? I don't think looking at um it would refresh my memory. I know I might have used different words, but the bottom line is I got out of the car, went behind the car, went over and Karen had done that. I'm asking do you think it would refresh your if you don't have a regret for having you testified last year on your road sitting on that witness stand I'm asking you think it would refresh your recollection to see your transcript last year I don't need to see my transcript I know what I know and I know what I remember so that's not my question I'm not asking you what you remember now asking how you testified a year ago now whether I said it was as we're fighting over silly words whether I said as as I got out of the car we were They are words matter. They matter a lot. Okay. So, remember Mr. Jackson, no comment. Miss um Mr. Kelly answer his question. Okay. Do you remember exactly what it how it is that you testified last year? I do not. No. May I approach? Yes. Thank you. Mayor. Yes. Thank you. Miss McCabe, does that refresh your recollection as to how you testified in substance last year? I see what it says. I said, but it's a little bit different than what you stated. Okay, then let's walk through that. Did you indicate last year that as you got out of the vehicle, that's when you could see what Miss Reed was doing with John O'Keefe down to the detail of pulling her shirt up and pulling his shirt up to try to go skinto skin. I object. Why don't Why don't I see you sideb Mr. Jackson's face? All right. Now you can go ahead. Thank you, Mr. McCabe. Is it true that you had the following colloqui uh last year on this subject? Answer. I was on the passenger side. So as I got out, she was already at John. Question. So she gets out and essentially makes a beline over to where John was. Answer correct question. And you're getting out of the passenger side and by the time you come around the car, she's already there. Answer. Yes. Question. And when she gets over there, what if anything could you see at that point? Answer: She straddles John and lifts up his shirt. And then she lifted up her shirt and went to lay on it. And Miss Roberts went over and she was removing the snow from his face. Is that how you testified last year? Yes, that's how I answered the questions. Okay. Clearly, you didn't indicate last year that it was white out conditions. You could see nothing of the kind and you had to get quote unquote very close to him before you could see anything. Correct. Objection. Sustain. It's the first word that's problematic. Mr. Yesterday you testified that it was white out conditions. You had to leave the car, walk all the way over and get quote unquote very close to John before you recognized that it was even a body. Is that right? Yes. But last year you testified that you were still at the car when you noted the detail of Karen basically giving life life saving aid to John. You can see that clearly all the way from the car. Correct. Objection. Is that what you said, Miss McCabe? No. is there a reason, Miss McCabe, that you might wish to improve your testimony this year than last year over last year with regard to the distance that you could see Miss Reed engaged with Mr. O'Keefe. No. Are you trying to suggest or improve your testimony to suggest that you had no idea that there was a body there and nobody reasonably could have even seen the body there as you drove up? Exactly. Is that what you're trying to say, Miss Reed? Mr. Kate. Okay. Can you repeat the question, please? Not sure. I'll give it a shot. I'm sorry. Are you trying to improve your testimony this year over the last year to suggest that reasonably nobody could have seen where John was from the car? I'm not I'm not trying to improve my testimony. No. You claimed on direct examination today, as a matter of fact, that Miss Reed looked at you at the scene and said the word the phrase, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." She said it three times very distinctly according to your testimony. Correct. She did. Yes. That was so impactful that it had the effect of putting you in some sort of shock and horror. Is that right? I was in shock the whole morning, but that statement definitely was a lot. And that's an incredibly memorable statement for you to have heard and now recount to us in this trial. Correct. Correct. Something that you wouldn't easily forget or overlook. Is that right? Something I wouldn't Something you would not easily forget or overlook. Is that right? Correct. Yes. As a matter of fact, it's some might say it's the centerpiece of your testimony. Objection. Sustained. M. McCabe, you testified at a grand jury in April of 2022, did you not? I did. Yes. Before you testified, you took an oath very much like the oath that you took before you testified in this case. Correct. Correct. You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Correct. Correct. And that included the whole truth at the state grand jury. Correct. Correct. That was only weeks, several weeks, but weeks after this incident, right? April 26th versus January 29th, 2022. Is that right? Correct. Yes. Things were much fresher in your mind then than they are now. I wouldn't necessarily say that. Especially something as momentous as an admission from my client that she hit him. Would you agree? Would I agree that she said that? Would you agree that that would be fresh in your mind? Something as momentous as that. You wouldn't forget that. I will never forget it. You wouldn't overlook that. I will never forget it. You would not overlook that either, would you, Miss McCabe? I answer the questions I'm asked. Can you answer the question that I just asked? You're not answering my question. Would you overlook that? No. And the reason you wouldn't overlook it is because it was so impactful on you having heard that not once, not twice, three times. I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. Is that right? Yes. May I approach? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Take a look at that document. Can you recognize it? It's Yes, I see it. Um, is that a transcript of your entire testimony at the grand jury in April of 2022? I believe so. Yes. You've reviewed it in the past? I have read it about a year ago. Yes. You read it in anticipation of your testimony a year ago, correct? Yes, I reviewed it. Have you reviewed it in preparation for your testimony today? No, I haven't. Yesterday. Um, Miss McCabe, turn to the page or pages in that transcript where you recount to the grand jurors that my client said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." This is over 227 pages. Take your time. How How long did you say it was, Miss McCabe? 227. I'm not going to let her read 227 pages. You reviewed it before, haven't you? I reviewed it a year ago. Yes. You read the whole thing cover, didn't you? I skimmed through it. One of the most important points in your testimony yesterday and today is recounting these jurors the phrase, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Is that right? objection to the form of that of sustaining it. Was it important to you to tell these jurors that you heard my client say, "I hit him three times." I answered the questions and I'm telling the jurors what I know. Was it important to you before testifying today that you recount to these jurors the phrase, "I hit him." Coming out of my client's mouth. Your client said she hit him? Yes. That's not my question. Listen to my question, Mr. I'm sorry. Was it important to you before you testified to tell these jurors under oath that my client said, "I hit him three times." As a juror, I mean, as a witness, it's important to tell the truth and to answer the question you were asked. And in point of fact, in your entire grand jury testimony, you never said, "My client said the words, I hit him." Did you again? It's 227 pages. Miss McCabe, you were there. They're your words. I'm not asking you to rehearse something. You were there. Did you tell the grand jurors that my client said I hit him? I have testified a number of times, but I was there the morning of January 29th when your client said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Did you tell that to the grand jurors? I'm not sure. It's because you didn't. Did you? Again, I'm not sure. Miss McCabe, you were asked in your grand jury testimony, no fewer than a dozen times, 12 times, 12 separate times, you were asked to repeat words that my client said both before going to and at the scene at 34th that morning. Correct. Objection. Do you know the answer to that? No. You were all asked multiple times what my client's words were that you heard her say both going to and at the scene. Correct. I was correct. And you recounted those words truthfully and honestly at that time. Correct. Correct. Because you were under the same oath that you're under today. Correct. And things were much fresher in your mind then than they are now three and a half years later. Would you agree with that? I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. Is just as fresh today as it was three years ago. Turn to page 190 if you wouldn't mind. Sure. for court and council lines 10 and 11. Which lines? I'm sorry. 10 and 11. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. You recounted what Miss Reed said to you over the phone to the grand jurors. Correct. Correct. And what she said at 4:53 a.m. was, "Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?" She didn't say it. She asked it. Correct. Um, she didn't say that at 4:53. Did you testify that what Miss Reed said to you that morning over the phone was, "Could I have hit him?" Did I hit him? Yes, I did. May I approach? Yes. Oh, sure. Just wanted to verify a page number, your honor. May I approach? Yes. Why don't you tell Mr. Brennan the page number? I I will with each one. If you turn to page 192, line four. What did you tell the grand jurors? My client said in that answer foundation. What are we talking about? I I'll I'll ask it a different way. Did you answer a question on page 192, line four, concerning my client's statement? Did I answer a question? You were answering a question, correct? Oh, yes. Yes. I'm sorry. And the answer that you gave to the grand jurors was she said, "Could I have hit him?" Correct. Yes. That's part of the answer I gave. Turn to page 193. I'd object. So I don't want to have to see it sidebar. We need context in order for this to be admissible. Mr. Jackson, I have no idea what that said. Your honor, everyone I can I can make an offer of proof at sidebar if you wish. Okay. Why don't you come to Sure. and bring them. May I please? Yes. Do you have an extra copy for yourself? I have suggested I think my dose is on page 192 line four for context. Were you talking about a statement that was made in Karen's car on that morning before you got to the scene? Okay. 192 192 line four. Yes, that was a comment she made in the car and she said the phrase, you recounted that she said the phrase, "Could I have hit him?" Correct. Yes, that was part of my answer. Take a look at page 193. Line one through two. This was also in the context of a conversation that was in Karen's car. Correct. Yes. And the phrase that you attributed to my client was, "Could I have hit him?" The question correct? Yes. Page 193, line 23, in the context of being in John's driveway at One Meadows. Yes. And you attributed the statement and she's asking if she could have hit him. Correct. Yes. when she showed me her tail light. Page 2011, lines 23 and 24. This is driving to Fair View. She asked, "What if I hit him? Could I have hit him?" Correct. Can you tell me the lines? I'm sorry. Lines 23 and 24. Page 2011. Okay. Sorry. Okay. I've read it. She stated, "According to you, what if I hit him? Could I have hit him?" Correct. Yes, she did. Page 202, top of the page, L one and two. Again, in context, this is driving to Fair View before you arrived at Fairview. And she again asked, quote, "According to you and your testimony in front of the grand jury, could I have hit him?" Correct. Yes, I see that here as part of my answer. Then turn to page 208, lines 24 and 25. I'm sorry. What? Lines 24 and 25. Lines 24 and 25. Let me know when you've I've read them. Thank you. For context, this is at the scene outside Fair View. Yes. And you told those grand jurors under oath, she asked, "Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?" Correct. Yes. On page 208, lines 24 and 20, I'm sorry, 208 and 209 going on to page 209, lines 1 through three. You actually recounted to the grand jurors a conversation that you said my client had with a female EMT standing right there exactly as you testified to today. Female EMT. You see that? I do. Yes. And what did you say my client's statements were in front of that female EMT? And this I say that she said, "Could I have hit him? Is he dead?" It's actually, "Did I hit him?" Oh, sorry. I missed that part. I apologize. Did I hit him? Could I have hit him? Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead? And that was at the scene in front of the female EMT. Exactly the scene that you're describing that you attributed the three statements to my client to today. Correct. There was many different times when we were talking to different EMTs. The female EMT, the men, police officers. May I approach you? Yes. Just hold your Sure. Miss McCabe, your full statement at page 208. Starting at lines 22 through 25 going on to page 209 down to line four was quote. So there are different, you know, police officers getting statements from us and at one point I'm standing with Miss Reed and she's saying, "Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?" And there was, I believe, an EMT, a female, standing right next to me, listening to her, yelling, "Did I hit him? Could I have hit him? Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead?" Was pretty non-stop. Pretty much non-stop. That was your testimony in front of the grand jurors. Correct. Yes, it was. And that was April 26th, 2022. Correct. Correct. Not one time, not one time, Miss McCabe, did you utter the phrase I hit him as it relates to my client in front of that grand jury on April 26th, 2022? Did you not once? I'd have to read through the 227 pages to see. As you sit here today, do you remember ever saying to those grand jurors, she said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him in front of a female EMT." I've spoken to in a few grand juries whether I what I said specifically at different ones. I don't recall at this moment, but I do know that morning your client said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him three times and there was a female EMT there. You spoke with Trooper Proctor just the same day, right? January 29th. Yes. Trooper Proctor was taking notes. Yes. About your conversation? Yes, he was. Review those notes. As a matter of fact, some I didn't review his notes. I think I've seen a report at one point or another on that very day, January 29th, 2022, when you were asked to recount what happened at the scene, who was doing what and who said what? You never told Trooper Proctor that my client said I hit him either, did you? Oh, I told him. Yes, I did. He just leave that out of his report. I'm not responsible for his report. No, you're not. But you have read his objection. So again, no comments, Mr. Jackson. You have read his report, right? Um I have seen it before. Yes. May Yes. Thank you. That report for another particular this morning. Do you still recognize it? Yes, I do. Can you review that report, scan it, and let me know when you're done? Okay. Is there something specific I should be looking for? I don't think you're going to find it, Miss McCabe. It's for I hit them. So again, jurors disregard the comments. So it's questionans answered format only. My question is, do you see the phrase I hit him as it's attributable to my client in that report? Objection. assistant. Do you recall telling Trooper Proctor that my client said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Objection. Do you recall that? Yes, I told him. He was taking notes at the time. He was taking notes. Correct. Those notes ended up being memorialized in a formal report. I'm assuming he the report that you're holding. I object. Sustained. Is that does that appear to be a report of the January 29th 11:35 or so a.m. interview that you did with Proctor? Yes, it does. You said you reviewed that report in the past. Yes, in the past. And you're aware in no place in that report does the phrase I didn't show up anywhere. Correct. Objection. Sustained. Can I approach you? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm witness I was just grabbing the report back. Sorry. May I have just a moment, your honor? Sure. I want to draw your attention to the very early morning hours of uh January 29th around 4:53 a.m. when you indicated you received that phone call from Kayle's phone. Do you have that time and date in mind? Yes, I do. My client told you that John had not come home, correct? Yes. And you knew that Miss Reed at that point was awake and looking for John? I didn't know what. I just knew that she was awake and screaming, right? Because she was worried about where John was. Objection. Interesting. You've been asked who you communicated with first thing that morning after you received that first call from the street. Is that right? Yes. You were asked by Trooper Prince in a in her formal interview. Trooper Prince interviewed you on February 1st, about 3 days after this the incident. Correct. I've met with a lot. I don't really remember specific days. Do you remember a female trooper? Yes, I do actually. In your house? Yes. Or at at I should say at your house? Yes. Um that was around 3 days after the incident. Was it two Tuesday maybe? Yeah. I I don't know. I wasn't there. I think so. Yes. If it's the one I'm thinking. Um, you were also asked uh at the at the same grand jury who you communicated with on the morning of January 29th. Okay. Remember that? Not specifically. Would it refresh your recollection if we were to take a look at that a specific page of that grand jury transcript? Sure. Do you need a couple of minutes, Mr. Jackson? I I do, your honor. So, jurors, why don't you stand up and stretch? Okay. You can, too. Okay, if you want. Thanks. Mr. Jackson, do you want a 5minute recess? Sure. We're still going to stop it for so really 5 minutes, folks. We'll have you go back and come back. Hey there, Karen Reed, trial watchers. You know what? A lot of the trials we cover remind me of that the world is unfortunately very unpredictable. And I'll tell you what, having a great lawyer matters so much. That is where a great partner and sponsor, Morgan and Morgan, comes in. This is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? Because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a 5.6 $.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta. And not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case, you know, isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. That's it. It can all be done on your phone. So, if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com/lcive by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. was back in session. You may be seated. All right. You all set, Mr. Jackson? I am. Thank you. All right. We're bringing the jurors over. Are we still on schedule? We are. Okay. for the jury. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. The school is in session. Please be seated. All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Jackson. Thank you, your honor. Uh, M. Mr. McCape, I want to draw your attention back to uh the morning later in the morning uh after you're back at 34 Fair View after the police have already cleared the scene and you're back with your friends and family inside the home at 34 Fair View. We've already talked about the fact that the witnesses were not sequestered in any way. They were not separated in any way by the police. Is that right? We were we were just sitting together with friends and family. So, yeah. No, everybody was free. All the friends and family that were in there were free to talk amongst themselves, which you did do. Correct. Yes. All right. Uh, everybody had the opportunity to say their piece and to listen to others say their piece as well. We had conversations. I don't It wasn't really nothing more than that. At some point, you did I think you mentioned this on direct examination. You did reach out to Mike Lank. Is that right? Yes. Remind us who Mike Lank is in your world. Uh, in addition to being a Canton police officer, police sergeant I think he was at the time. Who is he in your world? He was just a local guy that I, you know, knew was friendly with. And had gone to high school with uh, no. Was he ahead of you in high school? Uh, he we weren't in high school at the same time. Got it. He was about 5 years ahead of you. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Uh, but you had known him or known of him from basically childhood or young adulthood. Yeah, I just knew him from around town. At some point, you decided uh that you were going to call Sergeant Lank back to the scene because there was a piece of information that you wanted to provide him again. Sorry, provide him so he could he needed to come back again. Yes. Um ultimately, you called him on his cell phone, right? I did. Yes. So, you were close enough that you had his cell phone number. He had your cell phone number. No, I didn't have his cell phone number. Where did you get that number? I asked Julie Albert for that number. So, Julie had his cell phone number. Yes, she did. And Julie is Chris's wife? Yes. She was at the location. Yes. When I say the location, 34 Fair View that morning. Yes. As was Chris. He came at some point. I don't know if he was there when I called Officer Lank or not. As was Brian Higgins, correct? Yes, he was. He came back over to the to the location as well. Yes, he did. As a matter of fact, it was Brian Higgins who suggested that you reach out to Officer Lank. I'm not sure if it was him who suggested it. Someone suggested to you that you reach out to Officer Lank. Is that right? As I was sitting there remembering things, I believe, you know, I can't say who did or didn't. So as you were sitting there remembering things, you weren't just remembering things, you were remembering things and then telling others things that you remembered. Oh, absolutely. So others were absorbing whatever information you were providing to them and vice versa. No one was really providing me any information cuz they didn't know what happened. I was So you were Sorry. Go ahead. Okay. I'm sorry. Um I was just sitting there trying to recount what had transpired since I got that 453 phone call. And one of the things that you decided you wanted to tell Sergeant Lank was a statement by my client. Yes. So you call Sergeant Lank on the cell on his cell phone and you're able to get a hold of him. Correct. Yes. Whatever he's doing. Was he I'm guessing he's busy at the time. I don't know what he was doing. He was a first responder on a definite police officer case that was just powerful. So he ended up in business. I would assume. I again don't know what he was doing. But in fact, after you got your phone call, he dropped everything and headed back to 34 fairy. Correct. Yes. 16. Did he come back to 34 fairy quickly? He was there fairly quickly. Yes. I would say your request. Yes. So I called him and asked him to come back because you told him that you had information that was important enough that he needed to get over there so you could tell him in person what this new information was. I called him and told him that I was remembering things and asked if he could come back. And he didn't just say just tell me what it is. He literally said, "Okay, I'm going to get in my car, drive in a blizzard." It was still a blizzard, right? Yes, it was. I'm going to get all my gear on, drive a blizzard, back over to 34, get out of my cruiser, come into the house, and get ready for this new information that you're going to give me. Correct. He did not say all that. No. No, that's what he did. I have no idea what he did. He just I called him and then he came. Walk over. I mean, he came over his car, right? I would assume so. Yes. Right. So, he had to get in his car, drive over in a blizzard, get out of the car, walk through the blizzard, go to the front door, and get ready for this this new meeting that he's going to have. Correct. Yes. That seems like steps one would take. And whatever it was that you wanted to tell him, you let him know it was important enough to have a special additional meeting. It wasn't something that you were just going to sit on. You wanted to give him this information immediately without hesitation. Correct. He said if I remembered anything to give him a call, so I did. So when he came back over, he obviously had a notepad and a pen in his hand. Correct. I believe he was taking notes. And you told him, you testified this morning that what you told him was Karen Reed said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." Right. Correct. But when he wrote his report, you said, she said, "I hope I didn't hit her." Correct. I don't have his report in front of me. Yeah. Just one. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. If you could turn to the orange tab. Do you see that? I do. Yes. Okay. And you've had a chance to uh to read it? It just the highlighted. Okay. Hi. Uh, may I approach? Yeah. In fact, what you told officer Lank was something to the effect of, "I hope I didn't hit him." Correct. Incorrect. I told him that she said I hit him. He wrote in his report, which you just read, something to the effect of sustain. I hope I didn't. Sustained. Is this another example of an officer getting a a report wrong? Objection. Sustained. Is that report right? Your honor, sustained. Move on, Mr. Jeff. I hope I didn't hit him or something to the effect of I hope I didn't hit him sounds awful lot like could I hit him? Did I hit him? Did you hear that? It does sound similar. Yeah. You testified yesterday that during that first phone call, that first phone conversation with Miss Reed at 4:53 a.m., she told you, according to your testimony, that in that phone call, in that very first phone call, Miss Reed said, She had gotten into a fight. Her tail light was cracked and she asked, "Could I have hit him or did I hit him?" Correct. Incorrect. Tell me where I'm wrong. Um, in the first phone call, she had said we got into a fight and he didn't come home and I left him at the waterfall. In the second phone call, once I told her that I saw her outside of my sister's house um on Fair View, that is when she said could she have hit him and talked about her tail light. So 2 hours after Miss Reed found John O'Keeffe and began giving him CPR. You were interviewed by Sergeant Shawn Good. Correct. Objection. Ask the question differently. Mr. Jackson, two hours after Miss Reed found Mr. O'Keefe about 2 hours later, say 8:00, 8:30 in the morning after the scene was cleared, you were interviewed by Shawn Good. Were you not? Objection. Sustained. May we approach your honor? Yes. May I? Yes. Thank you. while you were at the scene. After Miss Reed had been giving CPR, Shawn Good interviewed you. Correct. I don't remember a formal interview with Shawn Good. Do you remember talking to him when he arrived at the scene? I do remember briefly talking to him after all three of us gave John CPR and he gave you he asked you rather he asked you certain questions about what you had seen what you had heard what had happened correct I have to tell you that I remember seeing him there and I remember talking to him but I do not remember specifics of any conversation or any questions that he asked me do you remember him telling you I'm sorry do you remember him asking you about any initial calls you had and you telling him about that 453 call and the early morning calls thereafter the initial calls before you met up with Miss Reed? I don't recall. Did you tell Sergeant Good. By the way, he was a sergeant at the time. Sean Good was a sergeant, not an officer. I'm not sure. Okay. Um, by the way, you knew Sergeant Good, did you not? I didn't know him. I knew of him. Like, I knew his name, but that was it. How'd you know of him? um before that day because his sister is a year or two younger than me and I knew she had a brother that was younger that was a Canton cop just flew the town but I didn't know him. Okay. Friendly but not friends. I wouldn't even say I was friendly with him. Okay. Uh, you actually told Sergeant Good at the time when he asked about those first phone calls that when Miss Reed called you, she was inquiring about John's whereabouts. Correct. Again, I don't recall my conversations with Shan Good. You certainly never mentioned to Sergeant Good the incessant screaming and hysteria that you've described here in court. Objection. Sustain. Did you ever mention anything about an an argument or a fight to Shan? Good. Objection. Sustain. Mr. Jackson, she said she didn't remember. Next question. I I have to go through the the the series of minations. I don't know what she remembers and doesn't remember. Next question. Mr. Jackson, did you mention anything about a cracked tail light to Sergeant Good? Objection. Sustained. Do you have no memory at all about what you talked to uh Sergeant Good about? There were many officers there and like I said, I know I talked to Sergeant Good, but I do not remember the specifics of my conversation during that chaotic scene. I'm sorry. Let me ask a different question. There were many officers there and many officers were asking you questions. Correct. Correct. Did you ask I'm sorry. Did you tell any officer while at the scene that during those first few phone calls uh first couple of phone calls with Miss Reed that there was incessant screaming and hysteria? Again, there were many officers asking me questions. Most of them were regarding who John was, if he had medical issues or concerns, things like that. Right. It was a chaotic scene. I don't remember any specific questions about phone calls. I apologize. But you did tell at least one officer about the initial phone call that you received indicating that John may be missing. Correct. I possibly said I got a phone call and that's why I'm here. We all came out to look for him. I I I apologize for not remembering specifics. Did you tell any officer at the scene anything about an argument or fighting that Miss Reed said occurred on that first couple of phone calls? Again, the conversations were very brief and they were with a lot of different officers. There wasn't in-depth conversations. Let her let her answer the question. Do you recall, that is a yes or no question. Do you recall telling any officer about a conversation in the initial couple of phone calls that you had with Miss Reed about fighting or being in an argument? Do you recall that? I cannot answer yes or no. Well, you either do or you don't. I said there was many different conversations. I am not sure. So, you don't recall? I'm not sure on specific conversations about that. I apologize. Is there a reason why you're not telling us that you simply don't recall making that statement? Sustained. Do you recall telling any officer about a cracked tail light that came up in one of those first two phone calls at the scene? At the scene. Again, I think all the phone call, all the conversations were about what was happening in the present time. And literally, this was a couple of hours after this incident, correct? When everything was freshest in your mind. These conversations were at the scene when Miss Reed was running around screaming. Were you also interviewed by Officer Melany? Again, there were many officers there that I spoke to. Miss McCabe, do you understand my question? Did you understand the last question I asked you? If I spoke to an officer, Melany, correct? Again, I I could have. I am not sure. I don't remember every officer. It was a chaotic scene. I had just found my friend on the ground. The answer is I don't remember. Correct. I don't remember speaking to him now. Sorry. Later that morning, uh, you did have a conversation with Officer Len that you actually do remember. Correct. Yes. Correct. What you told officer Lank or Sergeant Lank was that you received a phone call from Kayle's phone and that Karen Reed was distraught because John never came home. Correct. I told him she was I don't remember the exact words, but I told him something like she was hysterical and screaming and said John never came home. You never mentioned that she said anything about a fight during that initial phone call. Correct. Again, I'm not sure what exactly was said during that initial phone call. You never mentioned that she said something about a cracked tail light in that initial phone call or those two phone calls. Correct. These phone calls with who? Who are these phone calls? You're who am I speaking to? Initial phone calls that you had with Miss Reed? Yes. You never mentioned to officer Lank or Sergeant Lank that Miss Reed mentioned anything about a fight or an argument. Correct. I I don't remember. You don't you never mentioned anything about a uh having Miss Reed saying anything about a cracked tail light in one of those two initial phone calls. Correct. Again, I don't remember what I all the things that I told Officer Link. And you certainly never mentioned that Miss Reed said anything about could I have hit him during in either of those initial phone calls. Correct. Again, I don't remember my specific conversation with Officer Link. So, you don't remember the conversation that you had with Officer Lang when it was the clear light of day. You had had a chance to take a beat and a breath, catch your breath, cuz it's now 11:30, 11:00 in the morning. You don't remember anything about that conversation, but according to your testimony, you remember in detail what my client said, waking you out of a dead sleep. Correct? So, I didn't speak to him at 11:30. It was earlier in the morning when he came back to Fairview. Let's call at 9:00. Whatever. Okay. What? Whatever. It wasn't the same chaos as my client screaming into the phone that John never came home, waking you out of a dead sleep. Correct. Correct. But when you recounted that conversation or those conversations to Sergeant Lank, you didn't say a thing about Miss Reed saying that there had been an argument, did you? I'm saying I don't remember the specifics of my conversation with Officer Link. I'm also saying that I was woken up out of a dead sleep. I was Karen showed up at my house screaming. I went out to help her look for John and then we found one of my closest friends on the front lawn and she was saying crazy things and acting crazy and acting erratic. And so every police officer that I spoke to, let her finish. Every police officer that I spoke to, I tried to answer their questions the best I could. It took me hours and in some cases days to remember all the things that Miss Reed had said. My mind I was in a state of shock. But I the minute I remembered, she said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." I called officer Len. And your memor is getting better even as we stand here today. Correct. There are certain things I will never forget, Mr. Jackson. including the fact that you never ever ever said she said the words I hit him to a grand jury when you were asked about it 3 months after the incident. Correct. She said I hit him. I hit him. I hit him. You never told that to the grand jury, did you? I don't I can't I don't remember specifically that every grand jury and everything I said, but I can tell you with 100% accuracy, she screamed, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." And you never said that to the grand jurors. I don't recall if I did. There to get the truth. Correct. The truth is she said, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him." You were asked that specific question at the grand jury. What did she say at the scene in front of the female ent? And you know what your answer was? You do because you just read it. I wasn't asked what she was said at the scene. Answer to that question. I'm objecting. The objection sustained. Ask one more clear question, Mr. Jackson. What was the answer you gave in the in in answer to the question about what was said by Miss Reed to the EMT, the female EMT at the scene? What did you say she said? I don't know if I was asked specifically what she said to a female EMT. We're going to end this now. May I have one more question? Go ahead. I can't end it like this. Okay, jurors. Ignore the comments of counsel. Ask one question, Mr. Jackson. You said that she said, "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him in the presence of the female EMT?" That's what you testified to under oath at the grand jury, isn't it? Yes, cuz she also said that. All right. So, folks, we are done for today. Um, you remember tomorrow is the day that we're not in session. So I we will see you Friday. Friday is a full day and I have to give you those questions. You can stay and file out after the jurors came. Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don't do any independent research or investigation into the case. If you happen to see, hear, or read about the case, please disregard it and let us know and be very careful with your social media. Have a great night, a good day off tomorrow. We'll see you on Friday. Thank you. Goodbye. Hey there, Karen Reed, trial watchers. You know what? A lot of the trials we cover remind me of that the world is unfortunately very unpredictable. And I'll tell you what, having a great lawyer matters so much. That is where a great partner and sponsor Morgan and Morgan comes in. This is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? Because they win a lot. In the past few months, Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. That's it. It can all be done on your phone. So, if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com/lc live by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. Mr. Brennan, do you have any idea how much longer you will be with Mrs. McCabe? Yes. Um, it depends on how the rest goes, but certainly at this point, 20 minutes or less. All right. So that will hopefully take us to the lunch and recess maybe. I mean the morning recess or the lunch and recess at most. You have um you have witnesses lined up for Friday afternoon. I do. I have a number of witnesses ready for the next 3 4 days and I've given notice of them and I will try to tighten the order uh tomorrow morning and I'll let the court and the defense know. Great. All right. And nothing you need to see me about right now? Not for the Commonwealth. All right. All right. We'll see you on Friday. All right.