LIVE: Karen Read Murder Trial — MA v. Karen Read — Day Eight

LIVE: Karen Read Murder Trial — MA v. Karen Read — Day Eight

They don’t drop. All right. just doesn’t look like more cars. That was that was Thank you. Exactly. So they would just give you hard time. There’s no difference. Yeah. I mean, but it’s so Exactly. Oh, yeah. But they can still uh Oh, no. No, it’s a it’s No, it’s on. It’s a Apple. Yeah. Well, um they would not They could have already Yeah, it’s more like You know what? You would off your ground. has like a weird like yo I mean everything. He brought us maybe just like weird Oh yeah. All the way. That’s a pretty good Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. No idea. Let me grab it. Let me grab it. I need more. I’m on a roll. I got it. I got it. But saw the forecast. Hey, I know the police sent up here, but I don’t want you And it’s not fair for you to be in front of the house. And I’m not going to stop you. I’m just asking. But if you decide to do it the next time, I’m just going to set up in front. Okay. is now open. You may be seated. Good morning, please. For the record, before the court is Com versus Karen Reed, 22CR17. The parties are present. The jury is not present. The matter is on for trial. So, I was told that you wanted to see me, Miss Eddie. Yes, please. Okay. Come on up to Sybar, folks. All right, let’s bring the jurors in. And actually, I’ll see you about scheduling while we’re here. I forgot something. I do. Thank you, Chrissy. So, good. Did you see this? And then I’ll take it back whenever. Tori. Oh. the jury. Don’t worry. Next call. He he all persons have any business before the honorable Beverly Canon, justice of the North Superior Court and for the country of North. Draw near, give your tenants, and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The court is now open. You may be seated. For the record, before the court is Kwell versus Karen Reed, 22 CR117. The parties are present. Our 18 jurors are present. The matter is on for trial. All right. Good morning again, council. Good morning again. Good morning, jurors. Good morning. I have to ask you those three questions. Were everyone able to follow my instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left two days ago? Everyone said yes. I’m not a part of me. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes and not affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case and to be left on Wednesday? Everyone said no or should have. So today is a full day. We will be recessing this afternoon around 3:40 3:45. All right. U Mr. Jackson, if you go to the podium as soon as Miss McCabe comes in. We have Miss McCabe. I like this. Whatever you want. I solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter now pending shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help God. Yes. All right. Good morning. Morning. All right, Mr. Jackson, whenever you’re ready. Thank you, your honor. Uh good morning, Miss McCabe. Morning. I’d like to draw your attention back to the time that you were watching the SUV out of the front door uh through the front door at 34 Fair. Do you have that time in mind? I never watched it, but I went and looked at it. Saw it. Sorry. Yes. All right. Um I just want to clear up the one of the time frames uh that you indicated you last saw that SUV. You saw that SUV for the final time at 12:45 a.m. Correct. It was up past the flag pole at that point. I can’t be sure of a specific time. You indicated at a prior hearing in June of 2023 uh that you in fact did see it for the last time at 12:45. And you know that because of a text message that you sent at 12:45. Is that right? I did send a text message at 12:45. That is correct. Did you say quote? And by the way, for court and council, this is at 782 lines 24 through 25 going to 783 lines 1 through 13 or so. Actually 1 through three. It’s 782 going to 783. May I pro? Yes. Mr. Hang. Sorry. Thank you very much. No problem. Actually, Miss Beaven and and for court and counsel, I’m going to back up just a little bit up to line 20. you stated, quote, “So, I think my husband and I were talking just like about what they were doing and then I sat back down and then at one point I think I said hello and then I said at 12:42, “Where are you?” And then flip. I don’t know if that’s my last last text or if I did one more. Yeah, 12:45. Hello. Because they were still there. And then question. So, the dark SUV was still outside the house at 12:45. Answer at 12:45. Do you remember that question and answer call it back in June 2023? I’ve been asked a number of questions. Um, specifically that those words, no. Um, I do remember testifying. Um, I believe I said I think in there. I think that and to be honest, I’m not sure of exactly the times I didn’t pay close attention to when I was texting and when I was sitting, I was going back and forth to the door. But in June of 2023 at a hearing under oath, you did say that it was at 12:45 that you last saw the vehicle. I believe I said I think pressurection. Take a look at the transcript. I I believe the word I think is in there. You believe but I’m not sure. Okay, I’ll look at it. Sure. May I approach? Yes. Thank you. Okay. May I approach you? Yes. Thank you. Does that refresh your recollection what you said in June of 2023 about seeing the SUV at the location at 12:45? I see what I I read. Sorry, I saw what I just read. I don’t remember my exact words of every testimony, but I did just read that. Yes. And in fact, what you said back in June of 2023, quote, I don’t know if it’s my last text or if I did one more. Yeah. 12:45. Hello. Because they were still there. Period. Correct. That’s a part of what I said. And then the question was, so the dark SUV was still outside the house at 12:45. answer at 12:45 and then I said I think my husband and I so there’s more to that conversation what I read you is what transcript indicates you said on June 8th 2023 correct can you answer that is that correct that I saw it at that time ask the question again sure that what you testified to in June of 2023 was you saw the SUV for the last time at That’s what you said at least back then. You’re um that’s part of what I said. I don’t know if that’s my last text or if I did one more. Yeah. 12:45. Hello. Because they were still there. Question. So, the dark SUV was still outside at 12 outside the house at 12:45. The answer at 12:45. That’s what you actually testified to in June 2020. That’s what that says, correct? Thank you. You’ve been asked about with whom you communicated uh first thing in the morning when you received that 4:53 a.m. call there at that call and thereafter shortly thereafter within those next few minutes. Correct. Yes. As a matter of fact, you were asked by Trooper Prince in a formal interview on February 1st, 2022. I know that was a while ago, but in that initial formal interview 3 days after the event, Trooper Prince, the female trooper, asked you who you called or who you communicated with uh during that important few minutes after you received the first phone call from Kayle’s phone. Correct. I’m not sure of our exact conversation, but she did ask me a number of questions. Do you remember telling her I spoke with Karen Reed? Obviously, again, I answered whatever question she asked me. So, she asked I did speak with Karen Reed that morning. Correct. Okay. Miss McCabe, my question is, did you tell Trooper Prince 3 days after the fact I spoke with Karen Reed? Yes or no? If you have a report, I don’t remember the specifics. I met with many, many police officers. Sure. Would it refresh your recollection to take a look at her report? I I’d like take a look at it. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. You’re welcome. Thank you. Miss McCabe, you can familiarize yourself with that report and there’s a tab if that helps you because it’s somewhat lengthy. Um, see if that refreshes your recollection. Thank you. Okay. May I approach? Yes. Welcome. Mr. McCabe, did that refresh your recollection as to what you told uh Trooper Prince? I know what happened, so I just answered the questions. Yes or no? Does that refresh your recollection as to what you told Trooper Prince? Yes. Okay. You told Trooper Prince that you had a conversation on Kayle’s phone with Miss Reed, correct? Yes. That you also called Julie Albert after you got off the phone with Miss Reed the first time? Yes. And then thereafter at some point you talked to Tom Bey. Correct. I never spoke with Tom. I’m sorry, my mistake. I I I misspoke. You called Tom Bey. Yes, I called Tom Bey. Did not get through to Tom Bey. I didn’t. No one answered. Yes. Okay. Um then you spoke to the grand jury about the same issue. Who did you talk to and who did you call in those minutes after the initial call on Kayle’s phone? Correct. I’m going to I’d like to be heard. All right. Come on up. May I, your honor? Yes. Thank you. Miss McCabe, you were also asked the same series of questions about or a series of questions about the same events uh concerning that five uh 453 phone call and the calls that you made shortly thereafter. Correct. Yes. And in that testimony, you also consistent with what you said to Trooper Prince said, I spoke with Karen Reed on Kayle’s phone. I then spoke with Julie Albert or I called Julie Albert and I called Tom Bey. Correct. I object. That that objection sustained. Did you what did you tell the grand jurors about who you called or who you attempted to communicate with in those first few minutes after that 4:53 a.m. call? I don’t know exactly what I said on that day, but I know who I spoke to. You said on that day you spoke to Karen Reid, correct? On which day? What are we talking about? The day of the grand jury. Okay. That would be April 26, 2022. I don’t have the paper in front of me, so I don’t know my exact words. Well, I’m not asking you for your exact words, but did you tell them as you sit here, do you remember telling the grand jurors under questioning uh by the the Commonwealth that you spoke with Karen Reed? I spoke with Karen Reed that morning. Again, I don’t I’ve been at many grand juries and different things, so to remember specifically I don’t remember specific questions and specific answers, but yes, Karen Reed did call me that morning on Kay’s phone. My question is, what did you say to the grand jurors? And you’re saying you don’t remember? What question are you asking me? Who whom did you attempt to communicate with in those first few minutes after you first received the phone call on Kayle’s phone? If you’re asking me now, I can answer you. I don’t remember the I’m sorry. I don’t remember the spec the specifics. If you want to show me and then I can review it. I know the answer to the question. I’m just not sure of my exact words on that day. I didn’t ask you what your exact words were. I’m asking you about your memory. You’re testifying based on your memory, Mr. McCabe, are you not? Object. All right. Go ahead and answer that question. Are you answering these questions based on your memory, Mr. McCabe? So, I’m answering questions based on my memory of what happened on the 28th and the 29th. I’ve testified multiple times. I’ve been interviewed by multiple police officers to so to pinpoint one conversation is a bit of a challenge for me. But what I can tell you is what I remember from that day which was I’m sure very similar to however I answered because it’s the same. Yeah. Pressure to look at the trans. Sure. 188 189. Thank you. Thank you. I didn’t get an answer to that question. Mr. K, would it refresh you? I just have to do this for the the record. Would it refresh your record to look at a transcript? I’m going I’ll look at it. Yes. Okay. May I approach you? Yes. Thank you. Did that refresh your recollection about what you told the grand jurors in terms of whom you communicated with or attempted to communicate with that morning? Yes. What did you tell the grand jurors? I told them that I communicated with Miss Reed and that I um called Julie Albert and Tom Bey. Oh, and Tom Bey, I’m sorry. Right. So, in both of those statements to Trooper Prince, when you were asked about the your communications and at the grand jury, by the way, at the grand jury, when you were asked who you communicated that morning, who you communicated with that morning, you didn’t need to see a report, did you? You didn’t ask to see a report like you’re doing here. Well, I’m asking because you’re asking specific questions about what I said on a specific day. And depending on who’s asking the question, they ask questions in a different manner. So the answer is always going to be the same. If you ask me who I spoke to, I’m always going to tell you I spoke to Miss Reed and Julie. I called Julie Albert and I called Tom Bey. The answer is always the same. But the way the question asked and maybe some of the words that I use may be different and I don’t remember on specific days. I was been questioned many times, but the answers are always going to be the same. The wording may be different. Yeah. Does that answer? Yes, I am. Okay, I’m going to allow that, but let’s let’s move on with I’m trying. When the Commonwealth asks questions about who you contacted at home at the Grand Theory, you didn’t need to have your recollection refreshed with anything. You said, “I talked to Karen Reed. I called Julie Albert. I called Tommy E.” Correct. Correct. And that’s exactly what you told Trooper Prince as well. Karen Reed, Julie Albert, Tomi. Is that right? Yes. Correct. But you did make another phone call that morning that you left out of both of those statements, didn’t you? I’m not sure. At 5:07 a.m., you called over to 34 Fair View, didn’t you? If it’s in my phone record, then I must have. It’s in your phone records that you’re aware of. Well, let me ask it a different way. You’re aware that your phone records actually show that at 507 you called the 34 Fair View Nicole Albert’s phone. Correct. Correct. It shows also that that call lasted 38 seconds. Correct. I’m not sure what it shows. You actually spoke to your sister Nicole that morning? I did not speak to my sister. No. So that 38 second call went to voicemail. I’m not sure. All I can tell you is I never spoke to my sister Nicole that morning prior to waking her up. But you do acknowledge that you made a phone call at 507 to Julie Albert. I’m sorry, to Nicole Albert, your sister, over at 34:30 in those early morning hours. Correct. Yes. I learned after when I am first being questioned it’s days after it was a chaotic morning. I remembered the waterfall Julie Ben then Tom Bey calling to my sister wasn’t aso important in my ingrained in my mind at that point. No. And then you testified at a grand jury not hours or days later. You testified at a grand jury months later. Correct. Correct. And at that grand jury, you also left out the fact that you contacted your sister. Correct. There was nothing. There’s nothing nefarious. I remembered who I called. I didn’t go back and look at phone records. I didn’t say it was nefarious. Why would you use the word nefarious? Because there’s nothing about me calling my sister that is nefarious. Now I feel like you’re insinuating it might be and it’s not. Did you use that word because it sounds nefarious? No, I just use the word because I think that’s how you’re trying to portray something that is nothing. Or did you use that word because you think that’s how it’s coming across that’s nefarious without contacting 34? Uh, no, not at all later that morning uh of January 29th. And by the way, you do see you do acknowledge that your phone records show that you called at 5:07 a.m. to your sister’s cell phone. Correct. I don’t have them in front of me, but I I believe that is correct. Yeah. Were you calling your sister’s phone to alert her of something? Is that why you called? Um, no. Later that morning on January 29th, um after those initial phone calls, uh and after the scene had been cleared, about 11:30 in the morning, you did have a formal interview with Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, did you not? I did. Yes. Day before yesterday, you testified that Karen Reed, actually it was, I think it may have been Tuesday, you testified on direct examination that Karen Reid just showed up at your house screaming. Correct. Correct. In point of fact, you told Michael Proctor in that 11:30 a.m. or thereabouts, that interview that morning, uh, that on January 29th, when Karen was on the phone with you, you told her to come to your house. Isn’t that true? No, I never told her to come to my house. She told you she wanted to go search for John. And instead of saying, “I’ll come meet you or I’ll go wherever you want to go,” you told her, “No, no, no. Come to my house and pick me up and we’ll go together.” Correct. No, that’s incorrect. Do you remember talking to Trooper Proctor on that day? I do. Yes. Do you remember exactly what you told him concerning the plan to either come to your house or go search for John? There was never a plan for Karen to come to my house. Do you remember exactly what you told him with that regard on that issue? No, I don’t. Would it refresh your recollection to look at a police report that he drafted on that issue? Well, those are his words or summary. That’s not my question. I know these are his words. He wrote them. My question is, would it refresh your recollection about what you told him to take a look at his report? I know what happened and I know what I told him. I don’t know what’s written in that report. Yes or no? I don’t need to see the report now. Because it would not refresh your recollection to see a report where it indicated that you told him that you directed Miss Reed to come to your house. I object. The objection is sustained. I’m going to strike back. You also told okay please May I? Sure. Thank you. Uh, Miss McCabe, during that same interview, you also told Trooper Proctor that while driving back to One Meadows after you had been picked up by Karen at your house, while driving back toward One Meadows, that’s actually when Miss Reed told you she may have broken her tail light. Correct. Miss Reed told me in the morning at my house. Okay. I know that’s what you’re testifying to now. Mhm. What I’m asking is what did you tell Michael Proctor on January 29th precious thing of mine? That she had told me she had a cracked tail light when she called me. You didn’t tell him that she indicated she noticed her tail light had been damaged on the drive back to one meadows after she got to your house. Um she mentioned it then as well, but she also had told me um when she was on the phone. That’s why my husband yelled out that we shouldn’t be driving with a cracked tail light. But in fact, you did not tell Trooper Proctor that story. What you told him was she told you on the drive back to One Meadows after having picked you up. Correct. I told him she told me in the morning and on the drive back. So if he didn’t write that in his report, it’s obviously incorrect. Gotcha. 16. Of course, that drive back to one Meadows would have been 5:30ish or so, maybe even a little later. 5:35 approximately. Yeah. I’m not sure. Well, after she backed out of the driveway and struck another vehicle uh in at One Meadows, correct? Do you know that? No, I have no idea. All right. Next question. Speaking of Trooper Proctor, when you first interviewed with him on on that during that same interview on January 29th, you noticed that he was taking notes, obviously. Yes, he was. Um, you told him about your observations of the tail light that day. Is that right? I I’d have to see the report, but I believe I told him about it. Yes. And that was literally the same day that you made the observations. Is that right? Yes, it was. Uh, he asked you to describe specifically what the tail light looked like. Mhm. And you did so, correct? If I if it could I see the report? All I’m asking right now, I’ve got the report. If you need if you need it, I’ll give it to you. I’m asking about your memory, Miss McCabe. Did you tell him about what the tail light looked like? If he asked me what the tail light looked like, then I would have told him what it looked like. Yes. And what you told Trooper Proctor on that day is that you quote saw a crack in it. Is that right? I believe I said it was broken and cracked and it was missing pieces. Isn’t it true that what you actually said is we got out at John’s house and looked at the tail light back right tail light saw a crack in it. Correct. I said that I saw it and it was cracked and it was missing pieces. You noted if he was taking notes. Correct. Correct. Have you ever seen those notes? No. Would it refresh your recollection as to what you actually actually told him in terms of that description to take a look at his notes to the face? So, ask it differently. That’s a state. Sure. Uh, do you remember exactly the words you used in describing that tail light to trooper proctor as you sit here today? Again, the tail light was cracked and missing pieces. Okay. I know that’s what you’re testifying to today, Miss McCabe. We’re all aware of that. You’ve said it four or five times. Now, what I’m asking you is, what did you tell Trooper Proctor on January 29th? That’s my question. Do you remember the exact words you used to him on the 29th? I believe I said it was cracked and missing pieces. Do you know that or are you guessing? I’m not guessing. Okay. Do you remember that specifically? I remember describing it as cracked and missing pieces. Do you remember saying it had a crack or she saw a crack in it? I do not remember saying that. No. Would it refresh your recollection to look at a copy of his notes? Those are his notes. Miss McCabe, we can do this all day. Would it refresh your recollection to look at a copy of his notes? If it wouldn’t, just tell us. No, it wouldn’t. Okay. As you sit here today, are you telling this jury that you deny saying to Trooper Proctor, you saw a crack in it? Are you denying that statement? I’m not denying it. So, you could have told him that. He asked me multiple times different questions. I spoke to him um at my house and then he had called me. So maybe one time I said it had a cracked in it, a crack in it, and another time I said it was broken and missing pieces. So it’s very possible that that’s how you described it on the 29th, Miss McCabe. It had a crack in it, right? In missing pieces. Not asking you to finish my sentence. I’m asking you, is it possible that’s what you told him that day? It had a crack in it. Yes or no? Yes. That was one way. Mhm. In the days following January 29th, uh, and the events of January 29th, 2022, were you and your family coordinating your versions of the events that occurred on that morning? No. Were you and your family coordinating some sort of damage control in terms of the language that your family would use to the public, to the press, to law enforcement? No. Did you and your family use a group chat uh you and part of your family use a group chat to text each other to coordinate your communications with either the press or the public or law enforcement or family or friends? I have a group I have multiple like group chats with family and friends. You had a very specific group chat that included yourself, Nicole, your sister, Brian Albert, and Matt McCabe. Correct. Yes, I did. Your honor, if I may. Okay. I have a two-page document that I’d like to have marked registration. All right. As to approach. Sure. Thank you. Did you show Mr. Brown? I did. I failed to show you. That’s okay. Thank you. You’re welcome. Thank you. Can you tell me if you recognize what’s depicted or what’s uh contained on that two-page document? Yes. Uh what are Don’t read it at this point. Just tell me what is that? What are we looking at? Uh this is a um looks like a group chat um with me and my sister Nicole. Oh, no. Just actually conversations with just myself and my sister Nicole. Can I approach? Yes. Oh, sure. Identification. Did you happen to catch the date of these charts? I just took the document away from you. I apologize. It’s okay. I didn’t know. Yeah, I sure. Do you have an extra copy? So, she has one in here. I’ll just leave that one. I’ve got an extra copy for myself. I’ll leave that one. Thank you. Do you note the date of that series of chats? Yes. It says 12922. Okay. Is that a chat just between yourself and Miss I’m sorry, yourself and Nicole, or is that include others as well? I think it’s just myself and Nicole. Um, there was another series of chats, we’ll get to that in a second, that does include Nicole, Brian, Matt McCabe. Correct. Yes. On this particular set of texts, uh, do you see the first text starting in the green box? That is a text from you to It says Coco, correct? Yes. That’s my sister Nicole. Okay. Uh and you recognize this text? I do. Yes. And you recognize the texts following in the following bubbles? Yes. I would ask this be marked uh for I’m sorry. Moved into evidence. Is there any objection? I could review it. Really? Why don’t I see you at sidebar for a minute? All right. So, the objection is noted and overruled. So, Mr. Jackson, you can put that K for identification is now in exhibit. May approach. Yes. 47. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Before I proceed, so uh no. Um jurors, before you consider any electronic communications in your deliberations, and you heard um Trooper Garino read a lot of text messages the other day. I I didn’t interrupt him. I probably should have. Before you consider any electronic communications in your deliberations, you must first find that it is more likely true than not that the person who either authored or created or transmitted the communication was in fact the person alleged. So here we have communications between um allegedly between Ms. McCabe and her sister. Before you can consider them, you must find that it’s more likely than not that they were the people who sent and received those. If you do not find it’s more likely true than not that the person alleged to have created or sent them um then you may not consider the electronic communication in deciding your case. Now, when you read or hear about these text messages, you may not consider the statements for their truth, but you may consider them solely for the limited purpose of understanding the state of mind of uh here, Miss McCabe um when she sent those messages. All right. So, now that that’s what I needed to do, Mr. Jackson, your turn. Thank you, your honor. Uh, with the court’s permission, I would ask that the uh January 29th text be published. Yes, Mr. Wolf, is there a way to There we go. Margaret, the witness might need that exhibit. Your honor, may I approach just to retrieve the exhibit? Yes. Oh, thank you. You’re welcome. Yeah, I was just going to say, could you please enlarge that? Any way to make that bigger and we’ll take one bubble at a time. Miss McCabe, do you need lights on or are you okay? Oh, I’m okay. All right, thank you. Miss McCabe, is this does this appear to be uh a representative u copy of what you’re looking at that’s just been marked for for evidence? Yes, it does. Starting at that top text, which is the green bubble here. Um, can you see at the very top where it says from, there’s a redaction? Yes. The last four digits of that phone number. Do you recognize that? Yes. Is that your phone number? Yes. Do you see just beneath it, it says to and there’s a line that says Coco? Yes. Is that your sister? Yes, it is. That’s Nicole. Yes. And if you look down on the bottom right corner of this U exhibit, do you see a time and date stamp? Yes, I do. What is that time and date? It’s 129:22 at 7:54. Is that 7:54 p.m.? Yes. Okay. Uh, can you read for the jurors what you texted to your sister at 7:54? Sure. Carrie talked to the cops and kept it simple. Who’s Carrie? Carrie Roberts. And this is a text that you sent about Miss Roberts’s interview with the police. Yes, it is. If Mr. Wolf, can we pull up the next text, please? Do you see the response uh in the blue bubble? Yes, I do. Who’s responding to whom? I’m responding to my sister Nicole. Can you please uh tell us the time and we know it’s the same date. What time is that? That would be 7:50. I’m sorry. 756 or 58. Sorry. I’m not sure if that’s an eight or a six. I may have misheard you. The blue bubble is from whom? It’s from co my sister Nicole. To whom? To me. Okay. I may have misheard you. I thought you said the reverse. I want to make sure we’re very clear. The blue bubble is from Nicole. The green bubbles are from you. Uh, yes. Correct. Got it. And this text says, I’m sorry. Read that for me one more time. Sure. Okay. Try and get some sleep. Talk tomorrow. Next text, please. What’s the time of this text? 7:57. This is from you to Coco to Nicole. Yes. What does that text say? Any update? What did you mean by any update? I meant had she heard anything or learned anything new. Next text, please. Do you see a response from your sister to you? Yes. What does that say? We’ll get more info tomorrow. Don’t want to text about it. Next text, please. Is this a text from you to your sister Nicole? Yes, it is. What does that say? Right. Next text, please. What is the date and time of this text? It is 1:29 in 2022 at 8:01 p.m. And this is in response to the text that you just read from you to your sister. And this is now a text from your sister back to you. Correct. Correct. What does this text say? Okay. Text me in the text me in A.M. or if you hear anything later. Thank you. We can bring the lights up for just a moment. One of the texts, the third from the bottom text uh on the second page, in other words, the top text on the page was from your sister to you will get more info. Toomm correct? Yes. Don’t want to text about it. Correct. Yes. Tom M means tomorrow. Yes. This was January 29th, 2022. Correct. Yes. Tomorrow would have been January 30th. Yes. 2022. Is that right? Yes. Your honor, I’m holding a another document. This is a multi-page document. Eight pages in total length. There’s a base page on bottom. 02148. Thank you. May I approach the witness? Yes. Thank you. Can you please take a look at that document, flip through it, and let me know when you’re finished? And this is the document we discussed at Sidebar. It is, your honor. May I approach you on? Yes. Thank you. May I stand at the at the witness stand for just a second? Thank you. Don’t have a separate copy for I do. I’m going to hand you this one and ask that this be marked. Couple foundational questions. M. McCabe, do you recognize what was depicted in these documents? Yes. Does this appear to be a group chat between and among yourself? Uh Nicole Albert, Chris Albert, and that I don’t believe Chris Albert’s on that. I’m sorry, my mistake. Brian Albert. Yeah, Brian. Sorry. So, the four of you? Yes. Okay. And does this appear to be a group chat that was engaged between and among y’all on February 1st, starting I’m going to try to book end it starting at about noon, ending at about 5 or 5:30 that even I didn’t look, but I’ll take your word for it. You could just look at the first one or two. Oh, yeah. February 1st. Yeah. Okay. Um Yeah. And then the last one, same date around 5:30. Yes. Approach. Yes. This be marked. Right. Same. Uh for identification or in evidence in the evidence. Same objection, Mr. Brown. Please. Okay. Yes. That concludes 48. Oh, can I And juror is the same instruction regarding the electronic communications and the same instruction regarding this is not to be used for the truth what’s in there but simply as opposed to using the state with the court’s permission to publish please. Yes. If we could start at the second text down, Miss W. Can you make that a little bigger? I apologize. Thank you. Do you recognize what’s depicted uh both on the screen and in your hand? Yes. Does it appear to be the same thing? Yes. Okay. Taking a look at that first text, who is that from and who is it to? Okay. Um, all right. It’s from Brian Albert and it’s to myself, my sister Nicole, and Matt McCabe, my husband. If you can orient us, please. Uh, and I won’t do this with every single text, but orient us for the first text. What date and time is this text? This is February 1st at 12:50. So, this is about 3 days after the event in question. Yes. Um, 12:50 noon. Noon. Yeah. Just just before 1:00 p.m. Yes. Uh what does that text say? Julie said channel 4 is in DNA. And that’s from whom? Brian. So Brian Albert is Explain what that text means. So Brian Albert is telling us that channel that Julie told him channel 4 is in DNA. Who’s Julie? I’m sorry. Julie Albert. Thank you. Let’s go to the next text. Is this in response to the text that you just read? Yes. The prior text mentioned channel 4 and DNA. What is DNE? DNA is a a sub shop that is owned by Chris Albert. Is that in Canton? Oh, sorry. Yes, it’s in Canton. On the main street of Canton? Yes. Directly next door to what? Uh, Waterfall. Across the street from Waterfall. I’m sorry. CF McCarthy’s. Yeah. Thank you. Across the street from Waterfall. Directly adjoining. They have an adjoining wall to to CF McCarthy’s, correct? Yes. And D is it D and E or D N E? D and E. D and E. Okay. That’s just the name of the pizza sub shop. It Yeah. All right. Thank you for that context. Um, Miss McCabe, can you read what this text says, who it’s from, and who it’s to? This is from Matt McCabe to myself, my sister Nicole, and Brian. Can you read it for us, please? Sure. Eating, I assume. Ask Chris to ask some questions. Tell them the guy never went into the house. What does tell them the guy never went into the house mean to you? How did you take that? I took that as John never came in the house. Who’s the guy? John. John O’Keeffe. Yes. And the beginning of that sentence is tell them that the guy never came in the house. Correct. Yes. And the sentence before that is ask Chris to ask some questions. Correct. Yes. So this is Matt McCabe directing that Chris asked questions of Channel 4. Correct. I wouldn’t say directing whatever word you want to use. He was No, I’m saying that suggesting I think we’re all looking to find out what happened. So Matt was like, “Ask some questions. What do they know?” And also indicating that Chris should tell them the guy never came in the house. Correct. John never came in the house. Correct. Okay. Next text, please. Can you orient us who is this text from and who is it to? Okay. This text is from Brian, to myself, to Nicole, and to Matt. Brian who? Sorry. Brian Albert. And this is in response to the text above that we you just read. Correct. Yes. Where Matt McCabe said, “Tell Chris to find out, get an update or something and tell him that that the guy never came in the house.” Yes. In response to that text. Yes. And what does Brian Albert respond? Exactly. One word. Correct. Yes. Next text, please. This is a green box. So, I presume this is you. Yes, it is. And this is to whom? To Nicole, to Brian, to Matt. And what does your text read? It means oh my god. It’s omg, but it meant to be OMG. Correct. Yes. Yeah. I do a lot of errors. Which is stands for oh my god. Yes. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? So, this is from my sister Nicole to myself, to Bri, Brian, and to Matt. And what does that text read? It says, “I assume it’s just to eat, but Brian, if she is there, ask her what the deal is.” Next text, please. Before we add before I ask you about this text, the last text uh that was from whom? One more time. My sister Nicole. It was from your sister Nicole. Yes. And she mentions a a she pronoun she. Yes. Is that referring to Julie Albert? To be honest, I don’t know who she’s referring to. Well, remember the first text started or did the first text start with someone reporting that Julie said that channel 4 was in DNE? Yes, it did. So, would this would that prior text mean get Julie Albert to get some updates on what’s going on? I’m go back to that last text one more time. Yeah. I You see where it reads? If she’s there, does that mean if Julie is at DNE? Hence, she just reported that Channel 4 is there. I’m not I’m truly not sure if who she’s referring to as the she. Okay, fair enough. Let’s go to the next test, please. Mr. W, I think you missed one. The one above it. Who’s this text from? And who’s it to? This text is from myself and it is to my sister Nicole, to Brian, and to Matt. And what does this read? This says to ask if we heard if she is in a mental hospital. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? This is from me to my sister Nicole, to Brian, and to Matt. What’s the time on this text? 25:55. And what does it read? Carrie is here going over timeline. Who’s the Carrie referring to? Carrie Roberts. What is here? I would assume here would mean my house. Next text, please. Who is this from? And who is it to? This is from Brian to me to Nicole to Matt. And what does this text read? I did hear that. Next text, please. Who is this text from and who is it to? This text is from me to my sister Nicole to Brian to Matt. What does it read? And we handed the phone to Carrie. Who’s Carrie? Carrie Roberts. What phone are you referring to? Uh mine. Who was on the other end of that phone? on February 1st. I believe it could have been Michael Proctor. Next text, please. Who is this from and who’s it to? Um, this is from me to Nicole, to Brian, to Matt. What does it read? She is telling him everything. Everything is in all caps with an exclamation point. Correct. Yes, it is. What’s the time stamp on this, Miss McCabe? Um, 255. Who’s the hymn that you’re referring to in this text? I believe it was Michael Proctor. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? This is from me to Nicole, to Brian, to Matt. What’s the time stamp on this text? Uh 2:55. Same minute that you sent the last text, she’s telling him everything. Yes. And then you follow up with what? All the stuff. Next text, please. Who is this responsive text from? This is from Matt to myself, Nicole, and Brian. And what’s the time stamp on this? 4:35. What does this read? Yep. If she pleads out, it will end. If she fights it, it will be an episode. Who’s she? I’m assuming that would be Miss Reed. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? Um, this is from Nicole, to me, to Matt, and to Brian. And what does this read? Uh, she liked the um text above the previous text. Yes. meaning like a thumbs up or a like. Yeah, it just says liked.d.d.d.d.d.d.d.d.d.d So the one that reads, “Yeah, if she pleads, it will end. If she fights, it will be an episode.” Yes. Next text, please. Who’s this from and who’s it to? This is from Matt. Oh, sorry. To me, to Nicole, and to Brian. And what does this read? Brian sitting separate. Is that a period or a comm? I honestly can’t see. Is that a period or a comma between Brian and sitting? Or can you tell? I can’t tell if it if it is or it’s just like the way it printed out. I’m not sure. Next text, please. Who is this from and who’s it to? Brian, to me, Nicole, and Matt. What’s the time stamp on this? That is 455. And what does that text read? Okay. And the next text, this is another green bubble. Who’s this from? And who’s it to? This is me, Matt, Bri, I’m sorry, me, Nicole, Matt, and Brian. And what did you say? What did you write in this text? I wrote you listening. And what’s the time stamp on this? That is 5:15. I’m sorry. It would It would be what time? Oh, I’m sorry. 5:15. And in fact, at 5:15, Miss Roberts was in your house being personally interviewed by Massachusetts State Police. Correct. Um, they were there. I’m not sure if this is the exact time, but yes, they did come over. Just to be clear, uh, and to to orient us, there was a phone conversation that you were privy to between Carrie Roberts and Michael Proctor telephonically, right? She was um earlier in the day. Yeah. Yeah. Earlier in the day, he had called me and then Carrie had asked to speak with him. And that’s the handage of the phone. Yes. And later, a couple of hours later, 5ish or so, she was still at your house. Dr. Proctor came over and interviewed her at your home. No, I’m sorry, not Massachusetts State Police. Came over and spoke to myself, her, and Matt. And you wrote you listening to the group, correct? Yes. Who was that specifically directed to? I I I honestly don’t know. Was there anybody else in the house during her interview other than you and the troopers? Uh my husband Matt, my daughter, her friend, uh my other daughter. So, of the people on this text chain, the only person that would have been in the house that could have conceivably quote unquote listened would be Matt. Okay. Yes. Okay. Next text, please. Who’s this from and who’s it to? It’s from me to Matt, Nicole, and Brian. And what does it what does it read? Cops here again. You were reporting to the others on this text stream that the police had arrived at your house. They were within your house with you and Carrie that you just described. Correct. Yes. I was just telling them that they were here again. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? Um, this is from my sister, uh, sorry, Nicole, to myself, Brian, and Matt. And Nicole says, “Call us after.” And what time was this? This was 5:23. Did you take this to mean that she wanted you to call the group after Carrie Roberts interview and update them about that interview? I took it as that she just wanted Yeah. to call and see what the cops said and if there was any update, any information. Next text, please. Who is this from and who’s it to? This is from Matt and it’s to myself, Nicole, and Brian. What time is this? This is at 5:31. And at 5:31, what does Mr. McCabe write to the group? This girl could write a book non-stop. Was that in reference to Carrie Roberts having her interview with the Massachusetts State Police? Yes, it was. And the this girl is Carrie, correct? Yes. Next text, please. Who’s this from and who is it to? This is from me to Nicole, Brian, and Matt. What time is this text? Uh 5:32. And what do you write to the group? I love it. And this is in direct response to Matt McCabe’s your husband’s text about Carrie Roberts could write a book. Correct. Yes. Suggesting that both you and Mr. McCabe were listening to her interview. Correct. We could hear different parts of it. Correct. Next text, please. And who is this from and who is it to? This is from me to Nicole to Brian to Matt. What did you write? I wrote I wrote she is telling them everything. Similar to the text that we earlier saw that was in all caps when you indicated she’s telling them everything. Correct. Yes. on the phone. That was in reference to what she was saying on the phone. This is in reference to the live interview, correct? Yes. Also indicating that you were listening to and were privy to the content of her conversation with the police. I could hear bits and pieces of it. Yes. Enough to say that she’s telling them everything. When I um used the word everything, it was I meant it in not only was she telling them what had happened, but she was also telling them opinions and different things. Okay. So, you could hear that much. I could hear her saying some opinions. Okay. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? This is from my sister Nicole to myself to Matt to Brian. And this is in response to she is telling them everything. Correct. Yes. And the text reads what? Good. Next text, please. Who is this from and who is it to? This is from Matt to myself, to Nicole, and to Brian. And what does it read? He says, “Going to miss the basketball game at this rate. You mean uh Matt says oh sorry Matt says going to miss the basketball game at this rate indicating that he was still in the house and still privy to the conversation between Carrie Roberts and the Massachusetts State Police. He was waiting for them to talk but Carrie kept talk was as he said she could write a book. So he felt he was going to miss the game because she just kept talking. Next text please. That may be the end of it. I Yeah, it is. Is that the last text on the page? Yes, it is. Mayor Coch. Yes. Do you want both of them? Okay, there you go, Miss McCabe. Yes. These text messages were on a private chat, both the one between you and your sister, as well as the group chat. Correct. Those are private chats, not open to the public. Correct. You never intended obviously for any of those texts to become public. Correct. Those I handed my phone over, so I knew all my texts would be seen. When you were writing the text, when the the group was chatting back and forth or texting back and forth, those were intended to be private texts between and among just the people on the text string. Correct. I just was texting my family. I wasn’t thinking any more of who was going to see it. You certainly did not expect when you were writing those texts that the defense, Miss Karen Reed’s representatives would ever get a hold of those texts. That was not in your mind. Correct. Would never have been in my mind. No. That is a textbook example what we’ve just seen of witnesses colluding with one another about a subject matter that’s under investigation. Correct. And move for instruction. All right. Jurors, disregard that comment. Completely disregard that question. You want to make me approach? Yes. May I? Yes. Thank you. In the texts that we just saw, you were colluding with other witnesses, recipient witnesses in this case through those text messages, were you not? I was not. You were organizing your statements to the police based on what you overheard and what you heard during Carrie Roberts interview with the Massachusetts State Police, weren’t you? No, I was not. You were reporting back to other recipient witnesses what you heard and saw during other witnesses statements to the police to Carrie Roberts. Correct. I was telling them Carrie was speaking with the police. And you told them she’s telling them quote everything. Correct. Yes. I told them some of the opinions that she stated. And when Mr. McCabe said she could write a book, she’s going on. In other words, she’s going on and on. Your statement was, “I love it.” Correct. Yes. And you reported that back to other witnesses who were not privy to Miss Roberts’s statements to the police. Correct. to my sister and to my brother-in-law. Yes. And then your sister asked for updates when Carrie Roberts was done. Correct. I don’t know if it was in regard to updates when she was done or updates like did they tell us anything? Um is there anything new? We were still all trying to figure out what had happened. The four of you were discussing the facts surrounding this case, not only with each other, but discussing interviews, formal police interviews that you heard or overheard with another witness, weren’t you? I told them some of the things that Carrie Roberts said. Yes. And you were happy about what she said after you had created this timeline with her. Correct. Um, the timeline had nothing to do with it, but it was certainly chronologically. Her interview with the police was after this timeline had already been created between you and Carrie. Yes, we both put down what had happened so we would remember. And then once she was interviewed, you were responding to the rest of the group. She’s telling them everything, meaning everything we just crafted in this timeline, right? No, I meant she was telling them everything. She was telling her personal opinions about Miss Reed. I want to change gears for a second, Miss McCabe, and ask you about that visit that you took to Michael Len’s house. Um, okay. May I approach your honor? Yes. I just don’t want to keep these at the podium. Thank you, honor. Have you and Miss Roberts discussed that visit to Michael Len’s house before your testimony? Before you testified to it for the first time in May of 2024, about a year ago, did y’all discuss that at all? I don’t recall. you testified under oath in that proceeding um that you went and I want to be very clear about this that you went from One Meadows, the O’keefee residence, John O’Keefe’s residence, directly to Michael Len’s residence, which is in another neighborhood in the same town. Correct. Yes, we went correct. And you indicated that you were there to drop off one of Car’s daughters. Is that right? Yes. That’s how you testified in May of 2024. About a year ago. Yes. Just a moment. Yes. You spoke to Lieutenant Tully about this very f same visit uh on May 10th, 2024 before your actual testimony in that other proceeding a year ago. Correct. Yes. All right. And what y’all talked about was your visit and your travels over to Sergeant Lanks, by the way, Sergeant Michael Len of Canton PD, correct? Yes. The same Michael Len that we’ve talked about. Yes. You talked to Lieutenant Tully about that trip over to Michael Lank’s house. Correct. Yes. You indicated that in that interview with Lieutenant Tully that you would went over to the Lank residence with Carrie Roberts to pick up her daughter at the residence. Correct. Not to drop her off, but to pick her up. She was with us at Meadows, so we dropped her off. Right. And I I know that’s what your testimony was a couple days ago. I’m asking when you talked to Lieutenant Tully on May 10th, 2024 before your testimony last year, did you tell Lieutenant Tully we were actually there to drop I’m sorry, to pick up her daughter. That’s why we went to Michael Lank’s house. That’s why you went to Michael Lank’s house. I went to Michael Langs to drop her daughter off. What did you tell Lieutenant Tully? That I went to drop her off. So, you didn’t say pick her up to him? I don’t believe so. Now, so if he said that, that would be another example of a of an incorrect report. Sustained. Do you remember exactly what it was that you told him in that area? I know that Lexi was with us at Meadows and we dropped her off at Mike Lang. So, if he mixed up pick up and drop off, that could have happened, but I had Lex, we had Lexi with us and we dropped her off there. Okay. So, you believe that may have been his mixed up, not yours? Sustain. Is that Is that I’m sorry. Do you remember exactly what it was that you told uh uh Lieutenant Tony during that interview? I know. I said that we dropped her off. Okay. Um it was 11 days later that you actually testified, correct? 11 days later from after the after the interview about 10 11 days after the interview with Lieutenant Tully that you actually testified in court uh about in a in a proceeding about this issue. Ben, I don’t know the exact dates of when I testified. If you testified say May 21st versus May 10th, it’s about 11 days. Yeah. All right. When you testified in that other proceeding, you did testify that you had dropped off Carrie Roberts daughter, not picked her daughter up. Is that right? I know. I dropped her off. Yes. Did you also talk to Carrie Roberts about her testimony and what she was going to say about dropping off or picking up uh her daughter? No. Okay. You never talked to her about it before you testified or before she testified last year? We both know what happened. So, I I’m just asking if you had a discussion. That’s all I’m asking. I have no idea if we discussed that. So, you might have. I have no idea. And in the last year, let’s clock it around all the way to to now, you’ve probably discussed it additionally with her. Correct. Probably not that detail. No. Now, you also indicated, by the way, you were the reason that this subject matter came up with Lieutenant Tully is you were confronted with certain location data records indicating that you were at Michael Len’s house for a period of time. Correct. Sustained. ask it differently. Were you provided any records and asked about records that showed that you were at Michael Len’s house on January 30th, 2022? I was asked if I had gone to Michael Len’s house. Um, and I had, to be honest, I had completely forgotten because those days were just a complete blur. But then I remembered that after we left Meadow Zav, we did drop Lexi her so I’m sorry, her daughter off at Michael Len. All right. Do you recall ever seeing a document seeing something that indicated that you were actually a piece of paper, a document, a record, anything indicating that you were seen at at Michael Len’s house through GPS location data forms? Did I ever see a record of that? Did Lieutenant show He never No, he didn’t show me a record. He just asked you about it. He just asked me. Did he tell you during that course of that interview that he had been provided with GPS data records indicating that you went to Michael’s house? I don’t remember the specifics of what he asked, but I know that he did tell ask me if I had been there. Did he tell you that he had received those GPS data records from the defense? Did he tell you anything about receiving any documents from the defense that prompted the question where you were on on January 3rd? I don’t recall before your before that that uh interview on May 10th with Lieutenant Tully. This is preceding your testimony last year. Okay. Had you ever reported that you went to Michael Lank’s house, Sergeant Lank’s house on January 30th to anybody? No. To be I completely forgot about it. You indicated that during that visit you sat outside in a car in Car’s car. Correct. Yes. Basically for the entire visit. Is that right? Yes. You indicated that you did not go in the house except to use the restroom possibly. Correct. I have a faint memory that I ran in to use the bathroom. You indicated that you did not see Sergeant Lank at his home. Correct. I don’t believe I did. No. What time of night was this? I don’t know. We had left. We had been at Meadows for a while and then we left. dropped Lexi off and then I went home. Yeah, I’m I don’t know a time. Maybe afternoon. I’m not sure. I’m sorry. Your honor, I have a 10-page document that I’d like to have marked as identification with the court’s permission. Sure. Show Mr. Brennan on your way up. No problem. Take your time. is just going to review it and review that document. I have no no problem with that. Thank you. Good. Okay. May I approach? Yes. Thank you. Do you recognize the document there? So, has it been marked yet? I’m sorry. I asked that it be marked for identification at this point. Just only for identification. Sorry. So the madam court reporter will mark it and give it back. Okay. Thank you for identification. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. Thank you, your honor. Once you get the document back, I’ll ask you a couple of quick questions about it. Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry. Crazy. You have the document in front of you? Yes. Let’s take a look at the first page of that document just to orient yourself. Do you see that that appears to be a map generally? All right. So, I’m just going to ask you to take a look at the document and don’t describe it. Sure. Take a look at the first page and tell me if you recognize anything on that page. I do. Yes. What do you recognize generally about that document? Okay. I’ll see you council at Sidebar. May I have that please, M? Sure. Yes. Okay. Thank you. May I continue, your honor? Yes. Thank you. Taking a look at that first page, do you recognize u a location that’s pinpointed on that page? I do. Okay. Without telling me the address, what do you recognize that as being? My house. Okay. And do you see in the the call out box in the middle of the page? Yes. Do you see a date and time? Yes. What is the date and time? Um, it is January 30th at 12:13. Take a look at page two on what’s been marked for identification. Okay. Do you see a location pinpointed on that page? I do. Yes. What do you recognize that location as being? John O’Keefe’s home. Is Is that what we’ve talked about on Meadows? Yes, Meadows. Do you see a time and date for that location? Yes. 1:30 2022 at 12:19. At 12:19 p.m. Yes. Okay. Thank you. If you could turn to page, pardon me, four. Skip over page three and just go straight to page four. Do you recognize something that’s been pinpointed on that map as well? Yes. What is that? Again, don’t give me the the full address. What is that location that’s pinpointed? That is my house. Okay. And do you see a date and time for that location? Yes, that’s 130 at 5:21. When you say 1:30, January 30th, sorry, January 30th, 2022 at 5:21. Okay. Looking at page five, do you see a location? Yes. Pinpointed on that map as well? Yes, I do. And what’s the date and time of that location? That is also 130 2022 and that is at 528. Got it. Taking a look at page six, do you see a location pinpointed on that map? Yes. What is that again? What is that location? That is 130 2022. The location, the address. Oh, I’m sorry. Um, that is Fair View. Appear to be 34 Fair View. Yes. And what’s the date and time? 536. Taking a look at page seven. Do you see anything located on that a pinpoint location on that page? Uh, yes. What’s the date? I’m sorry. What is that location? Um, that’s Fair View again. And what’s the date and time? That is 1:3022 at 5:40. So, just to be clear, the page before was 536 and this page is 540. Yes. Okay. Take a look at page 8. Do you see what’s pinpointed on that page? Yes. What is that location without giving me the address? I believe that’s Mike Lynx. What’s the date and time? Um 1:30, 2022. January 30th, 2022. And the time, please? 5:43. Is you’re familiar with Canton obviously? Yes. Much more than we are. Is driving time from 34 Fair View to Michael Len’s house consistent with about 3 or 4 minutes? It could be with like they have multiple stop signs. Okay. And due to the weather, right? Taking a look at page nine. Yes. Do you see another pinpointed address? Yes. I believe it’s the same one. Okay. uh the same address on as Michael as Michael Lank. Okay. And what’s the time that what’s the date of that? One 1:30 2022 and that is 628 and 628 is about 45 minutes after 5:43 give or take. Correct. Yeah. Finally, the last page, page 10. Do you see yet another pinpointed address? I do. Yes. Is that your address? Yes, it is. Okay. And what’s the date and time of that pinpoint? That is 1:3022 as well. And that is at 6:34. And is would it be safe to say that your address from Mike Len’s address maybe six or seven minute drive? Yeah, depending. Mhm. We were talking about what happened when you were at Mike Len that that evening. U by the way, does any of that refresh your recollection about the time that you went to Mike Len’s house? Yes. I knew it was after Meadows and later in the day. Yes. So closer to 5:45, 6:30, correct? Yes. This is in January in Boston. Is that right? The greater Boston area. Yes. Gets dark really early. Yes. It was a blizzard. The night before. Yes. Safe to say that it was dark out. Yeah. I to say it was cold out. Yes. The blizzard was still brewing. Correct. I think it had stopped snowing by then. Um, still freezing cold, believe so. U, and your testimony is that you sat outside in a car with Carrie Roberts and Michael Len’s wife for 45 minutes. Yes. You actually And the I’m assuming the car was running. Yes. Heat had to be on full blast. Yes. You’re dressed in winter gear. Yes. cuz it’s freezing out. Correct. Correct. You actually got out of the car and went into the house to go to the restroom at one point. I have a faint memory. I think I did. Yes. And the three of you didn’t just decide, let’s just go in the house. No, we didn’t. You actually came out of the restroom, came out of the nice warm house, and fought the cold and got back in the car, according to you. Correct. Yes, I went back in the car cuz Carrie was going to bring me home. You stated on direct examination that and you’ve stated again today that you stopped by Michael Len’s house, Sergeant Lank’s house directly from the O’Keeffe residence as sort of a my word, not your sort of a pit stop to drop off Carrie Robert’s daughter. Correct. Correct. In point of fact, you actually drove from your personal residence to Michael Len’s house as a destination, didn’t you? I don’t I don’t remember that. This is what this piece of paper says. I remember just leaving Meadows and dropping off. Lexi, in point of fact, it wasn’t an errand. It wasn’t to drop anybody off. It was a destination that you went to from your house to Sergeant Lang’s house on January 30th, 2022, wasn’t it? No, we went to drop off Lexi. Was Lexi at your house? She was with us at Meadows and then we went to drop her off. Right. She was never with you at your house, was she? I don’t remember going to my house. So, if she wasn’t with you at your house, there would be no reason to drop the child off from your house to my wife’s house. Correct. Lexi was in the car with us and we dropped her off at Michael Lenx. That’s why we went to Officer Lank’s house. Yes. And in fact, we actually went from your house and did make a pit stop to 34, didn’t we? We drove by and um stopped. Yes. Slowly stopped. Yes. You went in the house and spoke with someone? No. I never went in the house. Why did you come by and just stop? I think Carrie and I just went by to like take a look at it. We were still trying to figure everything out. Stayed there for 46 minutes. Um, I have to look at the report, but yeah, we were sitting in the car kind of just like, oh my god, looking. Didn’t go in the house. We didn’t go in the house. No, nobody came outside to talk to you. No, you didn’t speak to Nicole. I don’t believe so. Possible. Like I said, Carrie and I just kind of drove by and were looking at the area. And that’s before you went to Michael Len’s house, correct? That was on the way to Michael Len. So, in point of fact, you didn’t go directly from One Meadows to Michael Lang’s house. I thought I had I truly thought I had. But now your memory is refreshed. My memory is not This isn’t refreshing my memory. I do not remember going by my house before Michael Len. Do you remember testifying a year ago that Well, let me ask it this way. Do you remember denying a year ago that you ever even stopped by 34 Fair You? I don’t remember that. Now, would it refresh your recollection to take a look at your prior testimony? Sure. Take a look at that page that’s top highlighted. May I? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. On May 21st of last year, you were asked about this very thing in a prior proceeding. Correct. Correct. At that time you denied altogether ever going by 34 Fair View. Correct? No, I believe the paper says I never stopped by, but we drove by. And now you’re saying that you did stop. Stopping by and driving by meant something different to me. Stopping by I look at as like then you pop in the house. Driving by is you just drove drive by. So we just drove by slowly and and kind of looked at the scene. And Miss McCabe, I think you just said that you may have even spoken with Nicole. I didn’t speak with Nicole. No, we were in the car, Carrie and I. And Lexi, you’re denying that you ever spoke with Nicole or any other member of the Albert family or anybody at 34 Fair as we sit here today? As I sit here today, I’m telling you that we we slowly drove by. So again, last question on this point. You did not, you now admit, drive from one Meadows over to 34, I’m sorry, over to Michael Len’s house directly to drop off Car’s daughter. My memory is we did drive from W Meadows. I know what this piece of paper says. I’m telling you that just my memory is we left Meadows and went down Fair View and then went to Michael Len, but this paper is saying we stopped at my house first. I don’t remember that. But again, I was in shock. Sorry. So, a lot of things from that day are foggy. Certain things, certain details I may have forgotten. And your all of your testimony over the last several days is based on that memory that you just described to these jurors. Correct. There are certain things I will never forget. Correct. I’m going to ask you a couple of questions. You may, depending upon your answer, you may I’m sorry, depending upon what you just answered, you may or may not remember. Well, let’s see. Okay. Isn’t it true that at 12:13 p.m. you left 12 Country Lane on January 30th, 2022? Yes. According to this, yes. Isn’t it true that at 12:19 you arrived at One Meadows, the O’keefee residence? According to this? Yes. Are are you asking her regarding I’m asking her memory, not according to the doctor. Oh. Oh, my memory. I don’t remember exact times. Thank you. Isn’t it true, Miss McCabe, that at 5:12 p.m. you left One Meadows, which is the O’Keefe residence. 5:12 in the evening. that I I don’t remember the times that I left. Isn’t it true that at 5:21 you arrived back at your address on Country Lane? I do not remember that. Isn’t it true that at 5:28, 7 minutes later, you actually left your address on Country Lane? Again, I don’t remember going by my house. Isn’t it true that at 5:36 you arrived at 34 Fair View and stayed for at least 4 minutes? I know we drove by. Isn’t it true that at 5:40 there just thereafter you left 34 Fair View? I know we left and went to Mike Len. And isn’t it true at 5:43 you arrived on that Oakdale Road address at Sergeant Lank’s house? Not sure of the exact time, but yes, we did go to Sergeant Link’s house. And isn’t it true that at 6:28, almost 45 minutes later, actually a little better than 45 minutes later, you left that address at Michael Lank’s house and drove back to your house directly. After leaving Mike Lanks, I went home. Correct. And you arrived at your house at 6:34. Correct. According to the paper. What about according to your memory? I don’t remember exact times. Mr. Jackson, is this a good place to take a break? Do you have a while more? Okay. All right. Juries, we will take our morning recess. 15 20 minutes. We’ll see that again. If you just break this way, jurors. Thank you. 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. 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. Let’s go to the session. Please be seated. So jar is that break was longer than I told you it would be. We were waiting for some records to be printed. So it took a while, but we appreciate your patience. All right, Mr. Jackson, go right ahead. Thank you, your honor. Uh, Miss McCabe, I’m going to shift gears to some phone calls um that you had with Trooper Michael Proctor back in January of 2022, moving forward to February and March. Um, your honor, may I approach? Yes. Tell me, Miss Pab, if you recognize those documents that I just handed you. Yes, this first one looks like um a Verizon record of my phone. Okay. And what about the second document? Um phone bill. Um and yes, more records from my phone. Okay. Um, I want to ask you a couple of questions if but before I do, I’d like to have both of those documents respective remarks just for identification. I don’t anticipate entering M and N for identification. Thank you. May I continue? Thank you. Miss McCabe, you had a number of phone calls with Michael Proctor on January 29th, moving into January 30th and on to 31st. Correct. Are you asking her to read the records or Not yet. I will in just a second. All right. So, turn the records over. See if you can answer the questions. Got to look at it. Okay. You had a number of phone calls uh with Michael Proctor in the in the days and hours following the incident. Correct. Yes. I know I had some phone calls. Yes. I’m assuming you don’t remember exactly the time and duration of those phone calls as you sit here. Correct. Would it refresh your recollection to look at your phone records that you supplied um for this time period? Sure. There’s two different documents, Miss uh McCabe. One of them deals starts with January 29th. Can you grab that document, please? Sure. Okay. You should see some highlights on that document. I do. Did Did you make a Did you receive a phone call from Michael Proctor at about 10:54 a.m. on January 29th, couple of minutes in length? I back to the form. Okay. So, you asked her if this would refresh a record. You need to ask her if this refreshes a record. Sure. Do you remember as you sit here a phone call at 10:54 a.m.? I remember getting a call. I don’t remember the exact time. Would it refresh your recollection to look at the document that you’re holding as to the time of that phone call? Time and date. I see what the document says, but I just in my head if you ask me what time did he call you, I don’t remember. Do you have any quarrel with the accuracy of that document? No, it looks pretty accurate. Okay. It looks right. It looks possible. Yeah. All right. Did you receive as you sit here, do you recall, does that refresh your recollection that you received a phone call from Michael Proctor about 10:54 in the morning? Does that refresh your your memory now? I I know I did receive a phone call from him. Yes. At that time, I’m I don’t know the exact time. All right. So, the answer is no. Was it midm morning? Yes. Did you receive another phone call on the 29th uh around without looking? So, this is again you’re being asked question. I’m going to go through this with each one of these calls. There’s not that many but a few. Okay. Okay. On the 29th, did you receive a phone call at around 12:49? I know I received a phone call. Um I again don’t remember the time. Would it refresh your recollection to look at that document the next line down or the next phone call from with that number? Yes, I see that there’s a call on this record. Okay. Is your recollection refresh refreshed that you did receive another phone call on the 29th from Michael Proctor. Is your recollection reflect? Do you now remember independently that? I not the I don’t remember the specific times. No, but I do remember that he did call me. Yes. Okay. So, there’s two phone calls. Easy. Excuse me. Um I only objected form. I don’t object to the record. All right. So, I guess the record is fine, but if you’re asking it whether she remembers, you’re not going to get anywhere, Mr. Jackson. Well, then I’ll just I’m being told that there’s no objection fine to the record. Just the question where you’re incorporating several things from Fine then that that’ll speed things along. I appreciate the objection, Mr. Bren. Yes, I have no objection to the data coming in. Okay. Thank you. Uh I’m just going to speed things along and I appreciate Mr. Brennan’s um assistance with that. January 29th, you see the the record indicates a phone call from Michael Proctor at 10:54 a.m. Yes. You also see on that same record a phone call on January 29th coming in from Michael Proctor at 12:49 p.m. Correct. Yes. Moving on down to January 30th, you see a record of a call at 9:51 a.m. from you to Michael Proctor. Correct. Yes. January 30th, uh, about a minute later, you see a phone call from you to Michael Proctor lasting about 22 minutes. Correct. Yes. January 30th, at approximately 4:45 p.m., you see a call from Michael Proctor to you. Call lasted about 10 minutes. Correct. Going on to the next day, January 31st, you see a phone call from you to Michael Proctor at 11:51 a.m., just before noon, lasting about 4 minutes. Correct. Yes. Take a look at the second document if you will that covers that document um or that time frame. Okay. The second document you should see some highlights and I’m going to ask you to start where there’s a tab at February 14, 2022. I don’t is Am I looking at the second one or the May I approach one? Yes. This one? Yes. Let me see the other document. This one has the February 14th. There you go. Thank you, M. McCabe. Taking a look at that document. Uh, and by the way, for the record, which one is that? M or N? Um, this is M. M as in Mary. Mary. Yes. Thank you. Do you see a record of a phone call on February 14th at about 3:55 p.m. lasting about 17 minutes between you and Michael Proctor? Yes. February 17th at about 5:19 p.m. Is there a record of a call between you and Michael Proctor at that time? Yes. February 28th at about 12:48 p.m. is there a record of a call between you and Michael Proctor? Yes. On the same date, February 28th, do you see a call at 4:34 p.m. with you and Michael Proctor? Yes. March 1st at 10:16 a.m. Do you see a call between a record of a call between you and Michael Proctor lasting 10 minutes? Yes. March 1st, you should see two calls, one at 4:51 p.m. and one at 5:06 p.m. Do you see those two calls between you and Michael Proctor? Yes. One was one minute and the other was two. Thank you. And on staying on that same date, uh, at 5:50 p.m., do you see a call on March 1st between you and Michael Proctor lasting about 12 minutes? Yes. And then finally, on March 29th, 2022, do you see a call at about 3:27 p.m. lasting about 4 minutes? I’m sorry, what was the date? It March 29th. Oh, okay. Yes. Okay. And that’s about a 4-minute call at 3:27 in the afternoon. Yes. Okay. And you had in fact, and that’s that’s all I have on those records. Thank you for that, Miss McCabe. Uh you had in fact met Michael Proctor in person on January 29th, correct? Yes. He was actually in your home and personally interviewed you. Correct. Yes. Uh not only did you have him in your home, it was for the purpose of a formal interview between the two of you in person. Is that right? Yes. That was the time that Brian Albert was there. Yes. In your home as well. Yes. And you had at least I think we went through about 14 phone calls with Michael Proctor in just the next days and weeks going all the way up through February and March. We’ve just gone over those. Correct. Yes, there are calls, but you’re right about the number of calls, but some of them it doesn’t I don’t even know if they were answered. And of course that doesn’t and that may be true, but you were communicating back and forth. Certainly. Yes. In the weeks and months following. Yes. And that doesn’t include those those records just for brevity’s sake. Those records stop in March. But there were more communications in April, May, June, July, August. Correct. I’m not sure about that. I don’t know. I think initially we communicated, but I’m not sure how long it went. So, and then I know we started communicating again in the summer of 203, I believe, or April of 23. So, you had spoken with Michael Proctor on the phone many times. We’ve just gone over those records, correct? Yes. You met him in person on the 29th. Yes. When he came to interview me at my house, correct? You just took the words out of my mouth. That was for a formal interview with you, correct? Yes. And it was in your house that you met him for that formal interview. Yes. And that was probably for some time. Wasn’t a two-minute conversation. No. Then in September or October of 2023, you were interviewed by Lieutenant Tully. Correct. I have been interviewed by Lieutenant Tully. I’m I don’t recall the date. And you indicated just now that you began picking up conversations with uh Michael Proctctor again in the summer of 2023. Correct. Yes. So there were many more communications at that time just before the September October time frame of 2023. Yes, but that was in regards to something different than this case. Not not the subject matter, but you had met him and talked to him more times in the summer of 2023, correct? I never met with him. I just spoke with him. Okay. In that interview with Trooper Tully, you were specifically asked about your relationship with Michael Proctor when Trooper Tully sat down with you in that I think it was a September or maybe it was an October interview. Uh, correct? I don’t remember the specifics of the interview. He asked you specifically whether or not you had met Michael Proctor, whether you not you had any sort of relationship with Michael Proctor. Is that right? I’m not sure the specifics of the interview. Isn’t it true that you told Lieutenant Tully that you had quote never met Trooper Proctor prior to September of 2023? No, because Michael Proctctor was in my house in January of 2022. Exactly. The the interview for trooper Tully. I may have just a moment, your honor. Okay. the interview with Trooper Tully in that fall of 2023. Where did that take place? I I don’t recall. Um, do you recall telling Trooper Tully that you had never met Elizabeth Proctor or Michael Proctor prior to September 2023? No. Would it refresh your recollection if you saw a copy of trooper of Lieutenant Tony’s report? I don’t need to see the report because I know I told him that I met him on January 29th when he came to my house. So again, he wrote never met before September 2023. That would be an error. Correct. Yeah, they asked an instruction. So again, that is sustained. Ladies and gentlemen, um I instructed you on previous questions regarding the same type of thing whether another witness is lying or not. Um disregard the question and move on. Mr. Jackson, if you had told Trooper Proctor that I’m sorry, Trooper Tully, Lieutenant Tully, that you had never met Trooper Proctor before September of 2023, would that have been a truthful or an untruthful statement? I exactly like to be seen. Okay, come to Sidebar, please. Next question. May I? Did Trooper Tully I’m sorry. Did you tell Trooper Tully quote you had never met Elizabeth Proctor or Michael Proctor prior to September 2023? End quote. I had never met Elizabeth Proctor prior. Well, there was a question. Did you tell Lieutenant Tully that quote? If I can break that quote up because it’s two thick parts. No, you can’t. So, we This question has been asked and answered. Move on, Mr. Jackson. Do you deny as you sit here telling Lieutenant Tully that quote that I just read? Do you deny it? Sustained. Move along. The question’s been answered. Let’s talk for a second about your phone calls to John O’Keefe on January 29th, 2022. I’d like to go through those calls with you briefly if I could. Your honor, this has previously been marked exhibit 26. Okay. Mr. Brennan has a copy if I may. Yes. Thank you. This one. Thanks. You’ve indicated on on direct examination and earlier on cross- examination that you had multiple phone calls to Mr. O’Keefe in the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022. Correct. Correct. Those phone calls ranged from about 12:14 a.m. until about 12:50 a.m. Correct. There was a call at 12:14 and then at 12:18. I’m sorry. I’m bracketing it. The calls I apologize. That’s okay. 12:14 all the way to about 1250. Correct. Are you saying 15? 50. 50. 50. Oh, sorry. I apologize. Um Yes. You called John O’Keefe at 12:14 and 31 seconds lasting about 49 seconds and that call was answered. Correct. Yes. And you see that reflected in exhibit 26. Is that right? Yes. Going in reverse chronological order on this exhibit. Um, you also see a call at 1218 and 47 seconds wherein you call I’m sorry, John O’Keefe calls your phone lasting about 36 seconds. Is that right? Yes. You know that that call was answered even though it says un I’m sorry. It says unknown in the document. Correct. It does say unknown. Yes. That 1 2 3 four fifth column over. That’s where it says unknown. Yes. But it also indicates that that call lasted 36 seconds. So you know it was answered. I don’t know from this record it was answered, but I know from my memory that I spoke to him a second time. Yes. You also made a call. Moving at to the page before this, starting at the bottom of the page, at 12:29 and 44 seconds, there was a call from you to John O’Keefe’s phone lasting 7 seconds. Correct. That’s what it says. And the record indicates that it was an answered phone call. Correct. According to the record, it was answered, but I never spoke to him. You deny speaking to John O’Keefe at 12:29 and 44 seconds. Yes, I never spoke to him after 12:18. Okay, moving up. 12:41 and 10 seconds. There was a call to from you to John O’Keefe’s phone indicating that that was missed. You see where it says missed? I do. 12:41 and 59 seconds. There was another call from your call, your phone to John’s phone and that was also indicated as missed. Correct. Correct. 1243 19 seconds. You called John O’Keefe. That was a missed call. Correct. 1246 and 16 seconds. You called John O’Keefe’s phone and that was a missed call. Correct. 1247 and 52 seconds. You called John O’Keefe’s phone and that was a missed call. I’m sorry, which one was that? 12:47 and 52 seconds. Yes. At 12:50 and 37 seconds, you called John O’Keefe’s phone and that was a missed call as well. Yes, Miss McCabe, these are there’s seven calls that you indicate you made to John O’Keefe’s phone and that were missed. Is that right? According to this record, yes, they were. That comports with your memory, correct? You indicated that you had called him multiple times uh that morning and there were missed calls, right? I called him, but I also think that some of the calls I might have done inadvertently. Well, we’re going to get to that in a second. My question is that comports with your memory that there were several calls, according to the records, there were several calls made to John O’Keefe’s phone, including two calls that you say you spoke to him 12:14 and 128. I spoke to him at 12:14 and 128. Yes. But you indicate every single call after that was missed, and you deny making those calls. I’m not denying it. And I just don’t remember. You’ve previously given explanation for what those calls were. These seven calls that were missed between about 1229 and about 12:50. That’s 19 minutes. You’ll agree. Correct. Yes. If you divide 19 by 7, that’s about every 2 and 1/2 minutes or 2.7 minutes your phone is calling John O’Keefe’s phone. Correct. Correct. You’ve previously explained what you attribute to those phone calls. Is that right? Yes. What’s your explanation? I think I was going back and forth to the door. I was texting him. I think I put my phone in my pocket. I think I inadvertently maybe have called him. What did you call it at the last hearing? Um I believe I called it a butt dial. And it’s not just one butt dial. Correct. There could be multiple. Yes. Seven butt dials in the course of 19 minutes. Less than 20 minutes. Correct. That evening, I wasn’t paying attention to butt dials or calls. I was going back and forth, listening to music, being with family. So, if I inadvertently called his phone, I did. Not inadvertently called him once, seven times. Correct. According to you. According to the record. And we only know about these calls because you’re looking at an extraction of John O’Keefe’s phone. Correct. Correct. But I also turned over my phone. So you could have gotten all of that off of my phone as well. And you’re well aware that an extraction was done on your phone and not one of those butt dials appears on your phone extraction. Correct. Objection. Are you aware of that? I am not aware of that. Next question. Weren’t you confronted with that at the last hearing uh a year ago whether or not those phone calls actually exist on your phone box? Objection. Do you remember that? I remember you asking previously. Yes. When you when you dial somebody by mistake, it requires several steps, doesn’t it? I’m not sure. A lot of times I just put my phone down and the next thing I know, I think it’s very common to do butt dials. So, you have an iPhone. Is that right? Or had an iPhone? I do. Yes. And that iPhone required a biometric or a passcode uh to get into the to get an open phone. Mine’s not open right now. Right. It’s not open. Correct. And it requires your phone required some sort of a biometric uh interaction with the phone, otherwise known as Face ID. Or you put in a code. Correct. Yes. Or I could have been texting and then after I texted the phone was open and I could have accidentally called John. That happens to me all the time. It also requires you to open the phone app. Correct. For instance, if you’re texting, you’re in the text app. Is that right? Actually, I’m not. I’d have to sit and look at it. Well, how how often? Make phone calls. Every day. Every day. Every day. Yeah. Hundreds of times a day, right? Not hundreds. dozens of times a day. Yeah. You have to open the phone app to make a phone call. You can’t call somebody from the texting app, right? Is that right? I’m not sure. I don’t know what to tell you. There’s a list of apps at the bottom of the phone. Yes. Messages, right? Is that Yes. Yes. And maybe I accidentally hit the last thing, the last call, like since I had talked to John. M at this point I would ask the court to instruct the witness to answer my question. I believe she is. Go ahead and finish. Okay. Miss McCay, I’m sorry. Jumping the gun. So, let me Miss McCabe, answer only the question that’s being asked of you. Okay, M. McKe, you’re aware that when you’re in the messaging app, you have to do something else politally to open the the phone app. Correct. Correct. You have to touch the phone. Is that right? Yes. That would open a separate app. Correct. Correct. Then once that phone app is open, then you have to choose a person to call. Correct. Yes. Sometimes the last dial, right? Yeah, if that happens to be the last dial, scroll through, pick a person, make one tap, and that calls the person and initiates the call. Correct. That is one way. Yes. But if you get out of the app, I’m sorry. If you if you close your phone, hit the lock button after a text message, none of that can happen without you having to open the phone and engage the phone. Additionally, correct? If you um hit the button to lock it. Yes. Right. So, you indicated that these are all missed calls. Is that right? That’s at the record show. Yes. In addition to a missed call, you’ve had missed calls before. You both received a missed call and you you make calls that were missed. Is that right? Yes. When you make a call that’s missed, generally goes to voicemail, does it not? It does. Yes. So, then you have to do something additional with that call. Push the end button. Correct. Correct. Otherwise, voicemails just go on forever. Actually, they go on for four minutes. Right. Right. I don’t know how long voicemails go for. So, if you had missed calls, seven missed calls, that’s at least 14 interactions. Double it because you got to make the call, then you got to end the call. 14 interactions with your phone for a single missed call. One, I’m sorry. For for seven missed calls, it could be. Yes. And your testimony is you don’t remember making a single one of those calls to John O’Keefe between 1229 and 1250. Correct. I do not remember making those calls. No. As you sit here, do you deny making those calls between 12:29 and 1250 to Java? Oh, I’m not denying that. No. I’d like to ask you a few questions about January 29th. A little further on in the morning after you got home from 34 Fair View. Approximately what time did you get home? Um, I’m not sure. Maybe around 11:30, 12. I’m not sure. 11:30 or 12? It could be 11. Are you talking about I’m confused. Are you talking about Let me Let me rephrase the question. Okay. Sorry. On the night of of the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022, when you left Oh, I’m sorry. When did you get home today? I I was after 2, I believe. I’m not positive. You went upstairs. Is that right? Yes. You began to engage with your phone. Yes. At that time, what application did you open up on your phone once you got upstairs? Uh, it could have been Hakamok Sports. Um, I’m sorry. I’m I’m backing up foundationally. What application on the phone was it Safari? Oh, okay. Yes. I think I I think yes. You used Safari as your browser. I’m not sure what I used. Um you opened up a search engine as well within that browser. Did you not? I’m not. I just know I Googled um Pakamox Footz, I believe. I’m not sure what app I opened or how I did went about it. So, Google is a search engine. You use Google possibly. I mean, that’s just an expression, but I’m not If you could show my record, I’m not sure what app I opened. Well, Mr. McCabe, you’ve seen this record many, many times about that search early in the morning hours. Correct. You know that it was a Google search. It was Google. Okay. It was a Google search. Okay. So, it was a Google search using the Safari app. Okay. You indicated that you were Google searching Hakamok Sports and something about ozone. Yes. Ozone sports or ozone basketball? Yes. What time was it that you did that Google search? It was when I was home up in bed. I don’t have an exact time. About 12 about 2:27 a.m. Correct. I’d have to look at a record. I don’t recall off the top of my head. You recall that time frame, don’t you? I know. I was home and I Googled that, but I don’t remember the exact time. You do recognize 2:27 a.m. I do recognize it, but it’s not from me remembering it from that night specifically. It’s from me learning afterwards. And what you learned afterwards was there was a Google search at 2:27 a.m., right? I mean, that’s that’s the that’s a layup to use a basketball term, right? There’s a record, I think, of one, right? of a the record is of a Google search at 2:27 a.m. on your phone. Is that right? I’m I don’t I’m not a phone expert, so I don’t know. I can’t read. You’re well aware. You don’t have to be a phone expert to know that there was a Google search on your phone recovered at 2:27 in the morning. You You know that. You’ve been told that. You’ve seen it. You’ve been asked about it dozens of times, haven’t you? I have been asked about it dozens of times. Yes. So, let’s set the foundation. There was a Google search on your phone at 2:27 a.m. Correct. Which Google search are you referring to? It doesn’t matter, Miss McCabe. Well, I know I did Ozone and I did Hawkamok Sports and those were the only two things that I Googled. I didn’t ask you what you Googled. I haven’t gotten there yet. We’re going to get there. I’ve asked you, was there a Google search at 2:27 a.m. on your phone? If you want to show me a report. Sure. Okay. You don’t as you sit here, you don’t remember that. I don’t You have no record. You have nothing in your mind about a Google search of 227 a.m. That’s what you’re testifying to in front of this jury right now. Are you asking me if I made a Google search at 2:27? I don’t know what time I was searching for Hawk Sports and Ozone. I have no idea what time that was. You’re well aware that your records have been pulled, correct? Yes, they have. You’ve touched with those records many times, haven’t you? I’ve been asked by you. Yes. And and and by others, right? Yes. I mean, the police have asked you about it. You’ve been interviewed about it. I’ve been asked by you. And Mr. Lai? Yeah. Mr. Lai asked about it. Yes. And every time you’re asked, it’s about a Google search at 2:27 a.m. That’s all I’m asking. It is, but it’s not one that I remember doing or making or did. It’s not one I did. It’s just one that is in a record that was misread. Are you denying that you made a Google search at 2:27 a.m.? If you could show me this Google search, I’d appreciate it. I have a moment. Yes. Your honor, I need a quick minute to find a record that I did not make. Um, can we take a brief recess five minutes? I’ll see inside. I will if Miss Little wants to keep looking We’re trying not to have you take a recess. So, the the lawyers are just going to get something done fairly quickly so that we can continue um up until the lunchon. Your honor, may I? Yes. Thank you, Mr. McCabe. I don’t have a paper copy, but I’m going to ask you to take a look at something that we display on the on the screen, okay? And ask you a couple of questions about that. Can you h uh zoom in? I object to the way it’s presented here. Okay. Um, take it down. That’s That’s not how it appears. You need to get rid of a column. That’s exactly how it appears, y’all. That’s the record. That’s the council. It’s Go ahead. Thank you. Uh, found the paper. Okay. Thank you for your patience, your honor. And Miss McCabe, may I approach? Yes. Thank you. May I approach you? Yes. You indicated you wanted to see a record, Miss McCabe. Did you see a record that ind indicated a Google search? Not what the contents of the Google search is, but there was a Google search. I just saw a celebrate record. Yes. And did you see the time of the Google search on that record? Yes. Is it 2:27 a.m.? Correct. Yes. Ultimately, you will agree that there was a Google search done. And now I’m going to ask about the content of hustl long to die in cold. Correct. That was done in the morning at the request of Miss Reed. Mr. McCabe, I didn’t ask you that. I asked you a yes or no question. Did you understand my question? Could you repeat it, please? Sure, I’d be happy to. Thank you. Did that record indicate that there was a search at some point done at some point for Husong to die in court? I’d object to recovery the record. Okay. Yeah. So, was there a search on that at some point on that paper? Was there a search that said that? Is that the question? Let’s start with that. Yes. Yeah, there was. Okay. Now, let me ask you a different question. You Google searched the phrase husbang to die in cold. Yes or no? Yes. On January 29th, correct? Yes. So, you agree that you were on Google, correct? Yes. You agree that there was a search done at 2:27 a.m.? Correct. I don’t recall doing a search at 2:27. The paper says it. I don’t. Okay. And you also agree that at some point that morning, you plugged into that phone host long to die in cold. Is that right? Yes. After we found John O’Keefe. Now you claim that that was at 6:23 and at 6:24 in the morning. Two iterations of how long to die in the cold. How long to die in cold? How long ti die in CID? Correct. I’m not claiming it. It’s the truth is what happened. You’re testifying to that. Yes, I am. You also testified that at the time you Google searched those phrases, it was Karen Reed screaming and yelling at you, shaking you to Google hypothermia. Correct. She was pulling on my sleeve. Yes. Yes or no? Yes. Okay. You have discussed this Google search and the issue of the hypothermia with Carrie Roberts. Correct. I told her in the days following. You discussed it, right? Yes. You discussed it in the days following January 29th, correct? Yes. You discussed it before her testimony at the grand jury. Correct. We discussed it after. We both We don’t talk about what we’re going to say before testifying or anything like that. 3 months between this incident and the testimony by both you and Miss Roberts. You two did not discuss this hypothermia issue. It wasn’t an issue. It was just something she said. But we don’t discuss it every day. There’s no need to. I didn’t ask you to discuss it every day. I asked you if you ever discuss it originally. Yes, we did discuss it in the first days following all of this. And that would have been before either one of you testified at the grand jury, correct? Yes. And we know that you were with her during her uh sorry, just before her testimony at the grand jury. Is that right? Yes. And you’re certainly aware that at the grand jury that in prior testimony, Carrie Roberts corroborated your statement that Karen Reed demanded to Google hypothermia. Objection. Ask it differently, Mr. Jackson. Are you aware that Carrie Roberts Well, let me ask you a different way. Have you and Carrie Roberts ever discussed the fact that she corroborated your statement that Carrie demanded that you Google hypothermia? She told you that? No. Did you ever ask her that? No. Did you do discuss your statement that Karen Reed was the one that demanded that search? Karen Reed did ask me to do the search. Yes. Okay. That’s not what I asked you. Did you and Carrie Roberts discuss that? Yes, we’ve talked about that. Are you aware that last week Carrie Roberts denied hearing that statement? Sustain. Have you been told, have you been updated that last week Carrie Roberts denied ever having heard that statement? Yes. Sustain, may we approach? Yes. Feel free to stand up and stretch. So, just one question on this. Just one question on this, please. Mr. J, have you become aware from any source that last week Carrie Roberts denied having heard the statement that was attributable to my client? No. You hear that? No. You’ve seen you’ve reviewed the video from the dash cam out at the scene. Correct. I’ve seen it. Yes. You’re aware that there is no video showing my client demanding a Google search anywhere in this case? Correct. I’m not sure what cam, you know, what cameras were aware. You’re aware that there’s no audio of my client demanding a Google search. Correct. Correct. You’re unaware of any witness, any witness who can corroborate your statement that my client demanded a Google search? Any witness at all? It was just the two of us. She had sent Carrie off. So, of course, Carrie Roberts is not such corroborating witness. Is that right? At least, do you understand that? Can you rephrase the question, please? Carrie Roberts is not a corroborating witness for you. You understand that? You just said that? Yes. Carrie, I don’t believe heard it. She was sent off. So, it’s your word and your word only, Miss McCabe, that my client demanded a Google search. Is that right? Yes. Yes. Mhm. Miss McCabe, you were with Carrie Roberts just before her grand jury testimony. Is that right? Uh, yes. You had been with her to create a timeline of a version of events that occurred. Correct. I wouldn’t say a version of events. We each put down what we remembered. She saw what you put down. You saw what she put down. Yes. And you compared and contrasted those with each other to create that timeline. Correct. No, we didn’t compare and contrast. I said she called me. She said this thing then, Carrie. And someone was writing it down for us. That would be your sister. Who? It was my sister. Yes. Which sister? My sister Denise. What’s your last name? Galvin. Is she here? She is here. Yes. Where is she? She’s sitting over there. Can you point to her and describe what she’s wearing? Sure. She’s over there um in the back with the striped shirt on between the gentleman in the purple and the gentleman in the black. Yes. So, she witnessed this timeline being prepared. Correct. She wrote the timeline. Yes. And then you’ve spoken to Miss Roberts several times about this case. Yes. and about your perceptions of this case. Correct. We talk about what happened and the aftermath of this case. We don’t talk about the specific details as much as we talk about the aftermath of everything. Miss McCabe, the fact is you instructed Carrie Roberts to say that she heard that Google hypothermia statement from my client before she testified at the grand jury, didn’t you? No, absolutely not. I never instructed her to do anything. You wanted some witness to back up your story about this Google search. Correct. No, absolutely not. I don’t It was said. Karen said it. It’s that simple. So, you’re the only person saying that though. Yes. And I stand by that 110%. And the reason that you wanted another witness to back up that statement is because you knew that that Google search for hustlong to die in cold points a very uncomfortable finger right toward you. Correct. I never did that search at 227. I never needed to instruct somebody. It’s no. I’m sorry. You are There’s that apology again. Has someone told you that you need to apologize when you say when there’s an uncomfortable question that you don’t want to answer? No. Have you discussed this with anybody? No. And that’s not an uncomfortable question. I’m fine to answer it. How many times did you say I apologized yesterday in cross-examination? I didn’t count. Probably more than 15, right? I have no idea. I’m just trying to answer the questions and be truthful as I can. And you’re aware that Celbrite, the Celebrite extraction that was done on your phone determined that of the three searches Mhm. 2:27 a.m., 6:23 a.m., 6:24 a.m., only one of them was recorded as deleted. Correct. Objection. Existing. Have you ever been confronted with having deleted a Google search off your phone? You ever been asked that? Yes. By you. Do you deny that you deleted a Google search off your phone? I never deleted a Google search off my phone. So you deny I never did that. I deny it. Yes. That you ever deleted a Google search? Yes. I never made the search. I’d like to move back to the time of about 6:03 in the morning, Miss McCabe. Uh, when you along with Carrie Roberts and Miss Reed approached 34 Fair View. This is exhibit 4. It’s been previously entered into evidence and I I think you’ve seen part of this exhibit. Do you recall, before we get to the exhibit, do you recall my client when the first officer on scene, do you know his name, by the way? I believe it was officer Sarif. When officer Sarif approached, he asked the question, “What happened?” Something like that. Open-ended question. Do you remember that? I don’t remember what he specifically said. Do you remember my client a few seconds later saying, “My boyfriend, I left him. He never came home. I don’t remember the specifics of what was said. Your honor, if we could, I would ask that we um ceue up exhibit 4 for the jurors at runtime 420. Right. Before we play this, I’m going to play just a like a second of it and ask if you can hear the volume. Okay. We could. Mr. Wolf, could you hear anything? Oh, I can hear. Yes, sir. Okay. Uh, I I don’t know how loud it’s going to be, quite frankly. Okay. Miss McCabe, will you please pay attention to the audio portion of this video as you as this is played? Could you hear that? I heard something. Could you hear my client? It sound like Miss Reed. It sounded like a female. Did it sound like Miss Reed? A female? I’m not sure. I could if Could I listen to it again? With the court permission one more time. One more time. Could you hear it? I could hear it. Yes. What did she say? I have no idea. Did she say, “My boyfriend, I left him and he never came home.” I could not make that out. You testified on direct examination that you were basically a passenger along in this ride uh on the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022. That you were not the person in charge. Correct. I was in the passenger seat and Miss Roberts was driving. It’s a bad question on my part. Let me see if I can reframe that. You testified that it was Carrie Roberts who was basically the take charge person in the scenario between and among the three of you. You, Miss Reed, and Miss Roberts. Yes. Yes. Not you. Correct. No. You were just sort of along for the ride assisting how you could. Correct. I was looking I was trying to help Miss Reed and find John O’Keefe. If we could play a clip starting at And I’m going to ask you, Miss Miss McCabe, to take a look at several clips. The first one starting at 6:21 runtime to 7:41. It’s just over a minute with the court’s permission. Yes. You pause this. Do you recognize the three individuals in the foreground of this video? I do. Yes. Can you start from left to right and describe for the jur jurors who we’re looking at? I believe that’s me in the black coat. To the right of me is Miss Roberts and on the other side of the car is Miss Reed. Miss Roberts has just to distinguish. Miss Robert seemed to have fur on her hood where you did not. Yes. You can go ahead and play that, please. You pause it, please. Can you see who it appears you’re talking to at that point? I don’t know who that is. No. Go ahead and play it. Pause it. Does it appear that you’re engaged in conversation with that person while Miss Roberts is attending to something in the truck and Miss Reed is running back and forth? Yes, I was speaking to whoever that was. Do you believe that was a police officer? I believe yes. Go ahead, play it. Mr. Wol, if you’ll stop it at at 7:41, please. Could you see what was depicted in the video for about that minute and 10 second run time? Yes. Uh, did it appear that you were engaged in conversation with that other person? Yes. When that other person walked away, could you see his jacket? I couldn’t make it out. Now, did it appear to be he was a police officer? I’m going to assume it was a police officer. Yes. Okay. In that video, who looks most like she is taking charge, you or Carrie Roberts? Objection. Sustained. Does it appear in that video that you’re the one controlling the narrative, at least with law enforcement at that point? Objection. Sustained. Does it appear in that video that you’re the one engaging in conversation with law enforcement while Carrie Roberts and and Miss Reed are otherwise occupied? I am speaking with law enforcement. Yes. Can we move to runtime 856? Pause it. Can you see yourself in that video? I can. Yes. Which person are you? I’m in the far right speaking to someone. Yes. Who’s that you’re speaking to? I can’t make it out, but it looks like a police officer possibly. And Miss Roberts is directly in the middle of the screen. Is that right? I thought that was Miss Reed, but I could be wrong. Let’s go ahead and play it. And at 9:26 you’ll stop please in that video clip. Who among the three of you appear to be most engaged with law enforcement at that time? Okay. Can you tell Can you answer that, Miss Reed? I mean, can you answer that, Miss McCabe? Yes, I can. I was speaking to police officers. Yes, I was trying to help them. Okay. Can we go to runtime 10:49? This will be from 10:49 to 11:55. Mr. Wol, pause it. Who is it that’s just justiciculating in the the video? That is me. Can we go ahead and play it? Did you see yourself in that video? That clip about a minute long clip? Yes, I did. Who among the three of you appeared to be most engaged with law enforcement in that clip? I was um runtime 2022. Mr. Wal, stop it. Do you see yourself in that video? I do. Yes. You just walked in from frame right? Yes. From frame right going left. Yes. Behind Miss Roberts. Okay. And that’s you right in the middle of the screen. Yes, it is. And Miss Roberts had already run through, went to her SUV, correct? Yes. Okay. Go ahead and play. This is about a two-minute clip for the court’s um edification. All right. And this is the last of them. Well, can you pause it? Can you tell who you’re speaking to there? I think it’s Mike Lang. Let’s go ahead and play it. Yeah, just a moment. Miss Beabe, who was most engaged in that clip with law enforcement between among you and Carrie Roberts and Miss Reed? I was. Um, you noticed when Mr. Mr. O’Keefe was placed on the B on the gurnie in a prior clip and moved past you. Correct. Yes. Did you notice what your reaction was when that gurnie passed you? I didn’t know. Did you see that you turned your back completely as he passed by? If that happened, it wasn’t on purpose. M. McCabe, when you got to the scene, we can take that down. When you got to the scene at 6:03 in the morning, you immediately recognized, did you not, that this was an emergency situation. Highintensity emergency situation. Correct. I knew it was an emergency situation. Yes. As a matter of fact, a man’s life was in grave danger. You knew that? Yes, I did. And this is someone that was a friend of yours, correct? Yes. He was a dear friend. Not just a friend, but a police officer who was laying, as far as you knew, dying in the snow. Is that right? Yes. You knew that you needed to get immediate medical attention, emergency medical attention to him as quickly as you possibly could. Is that right? Yes. You knew that minutes counted, right? Yes. You knew that seconds counted. Correct. Correct. This man was grasping, as far as you knew, grasping and clinging to life at that moment. Is that right? Yes. That’s why you called 911 to get emergency personnel who are trained in CPR and life-saving measures to the scene to the to the gentleman to Mr. O’Keefe as quickly as you possibly could. Correct. Yes. You called 911 at about 6:03 and 35 seconds. Is that right? I don’t expect you to know down to the second, but it was about couple of minutes after 6. Right after Yeah, we found him. Yes. And you’re aware from the dash cam that officer Serif got there about 6:10 almost on the nose, right? I didn’t pay attention to the time. You’ll agree with me that it was about 6 and 1/2 minutes or so between the time you called 911 and the time officer Sarif got there. Is that right? If that’s what the dash cam says. Yes. On that 911 call, you referred to John O’Keefe as a man passed out in the snow. Yes. You didn’t say this is my friend. I needed to get, like you said, emergency there. So, I wasn’t going to give a I wasn’t going to give a description and say, “My friend is in the snow.” I was going to give them the information that I thought was the most important at the time. Did you say his name? I just said a man cuz that was the most important identifying. You didn’t say John. Eventually in um the 911, I do say his name. You didn’t initially say O’Keefe, correct? No, none of that matters. It was a man in the snow and I wanted help there. And you didn’t say he’s a Boston police officer or an offduty police officer. Again, a man needed help. Yes or no? Did you say that? I didn’t. Do you think that might Yes or no? Do you think that might have sped things up if they knew if the 911 operator knew that this was a fallen officer, a fellow officer? I think 911 comes to everyone equally. I don’t think they would have Do you think that might have been something important to relay to the 911 officials? I don’t know. You even asked by the 911 operator, “Does anybody know CPR?” And your answer was no. Correct. I’d have to listen to it to remember my exact answers. But it was basically in the negative. No, we’re not professionals. We’re just out here doing the best we can. Correct. I wouldn’t say that. No. You didn’t believe Karen Reed knew CPR? I didn’t know. I don’t think I answered that question. I don’t think it was asked. You didn’t know if Carrie Roberts knew CPR? Correct. I didn’t know if they knew CPR. Correct. And none of you are paramedics. No. None of you are first responders. No. None of you are trained in emergency life-saving techniques in any way. Correct. Correct. I have a question, Miss McCabe. Mhm. On all of Fairview, the entire road between Chapman and Cedar Crest, can you think of any person on that road who might have had life saving techniques trained into them? first responder, someone who knew how to deal with someone in distress, someone with high skill level training. Do you think of anyone on Fairview who had that kind of training? Can I now or did I then? Which are you asking? Did you then? No. Then my focus was on John O’Keefe. Okay, let me narrow the focus. How about on the property? How about at 34 Fairview? Could you think of anyone that was a first responder who would have life-saving training, life-saving technique training under his belt? Yes, my brother-in-law, Brian Albert. And you didn’t go in the house, did you? No, I did not. When you arrived at the scene, you didn’t go in. Not until much later. Correct. Our focus was John. You knew that Brian Albert was inside the house. You just been with him hours earlier. Correct. Yes. You knew that his window was 30 ft away. You were staring at it. You could look at it if you wanted to. Correct. Um, it was it’s off to an angle. And you didn’t go in the house then either. I did not know. You knew that John O’Keefe was clinging to life during those precious those precious minutes and seconds. Is that right? I did. Yes. And you also knew that Brian Albert, your brother-in-law, was a first responder trained to deal with people in that kind of distress. Correct. In that moment, my only thoughts were John and everything we could do for John. And you knew that there were warm blankets inside the house. Is that right? I did. Yes, there were warm blankets in the house. And you still never went in, did you? No, I went and attended to John because once I finished calling 911. I went over to John and Carrie Roberts asked me to take over compressions. So, I felt like that was more important and 911 was on the way, I never thought about going in the house. I just thought, how can I help John? You never thought about going in the house, but you did pull out your cell phone and make two phone calls, did you? After I called 911, I tried calling my sister. Yes. While John was out in the cold clinging to life, you weren’t doing chest compressions at 607 and 608, were you? I was walking over when I was calling. You were calling your sister on the phone, weren’t you? I was calling them to see if they would come out, but I was going right over to work on him. And you could have walked with 25 ft to the front door, walked in the house and screamed for Brian Albert to come out and help in those precious seconds and minutes, couldn’t you? That would have taken me away from helping John, getting Carrie blankets, giving him compressions, and making those two very important phone calls, 607 and 608, that you say were not answered. Correct. They were not important phone calls. I tried to call my sister and then I focused on John. They were not important phone calls, but they were important enough for you to make while John is clinging to life right there in front of you. Right. As I was walking over, I called to see if she would answer. And she didn’t answer. Let’s talk about that. She didn’t answer according to you. So, if we’re going to talk about it, we’re well we’re beyond the lunchon break. Your honor, I have two more questions. Okay. And I’m I’ll wrap it. Okay. Let’s talk about that real quick. Sure. She didn’t answer the phone, did she? No, she didn’t. So, you have a situation where a man is laying dead or dying in the front yard of your sister’s house. You see nothing in terms of life inside the house. Lights aren’t coming on. They’re not getting up. They’re certainly not coming outside. Right. They were sound asleep. They weren’t coming outside, were they? Because they were asleep. You didn’t know if they were asleep. All you knew was there was a a severely injured man on the front lawn of their house and your sister didn’t answer the phone. Not once but twice. Correct. Correct. She didn’t answer the phone. Did you think your sister might have been in peril? Did you think to go inside the house and check that they’re okay? I had no reason to think that they weren’t okay. You had no reason to believe they weren’t okay. A man was dead or dying on their lawn and your sister’s not answering the phone. And nobody is coming out to the chaos of Karen Reed screaming on the cocon. You didn’t think there was some reason to believe they could have been in peril. I didn’t because your client was screaming she hit him. She had a cracked tail light. She was crying. She hit him. I didn’t. But my focus Can I finish, please? You had solved the crime right then and there. You solved the whole case. No, I didn’t. I knew John never came in the house, so I had no concern for anyone’s safety inside the house. The reason you didn’t go inside the house is because you knew better. You knew better. You knew she wasn’t in peril. You knew that Brian Albert wasn’t in peril. You weren’t worried at all about them, were you? I was not worried at all because something happened on the front lawn that had nothing to do with anything inside that house. You weren’t worried about them at all because you knew what really happened, didn’t you? At that moment, I didn’t know that he was hit by a vehicle and there was tail light found next to him. All right, jurors. Lunch and break. Um, let’s take this. How long? That is a textbook example. what we’ve just seen of witnesses colluding with one another about a subject matter that’s under investigation. Correct. And move for an instruction. All right. Jurors, disregard that comment. Completely disregard that question. Your honor, may we approach? Yes. And there you have it. Some of the cross-examination by Alan Jackson of critical witness Jennifer McCabe in the retrial of Karen Reed. Good afternoon. I’m Anget Levy. Thank you so much for joining us on this Friday afternoon. We are going to be taking your questions during the lunch hour in the retrial of Karen Reed. That lunch hour starting a little bit later than usual. Uh the judge wanting to get to it and stay on schedule. So the redirect of Jennifer McCabe will begin after lunch. So, drop your questions in the YouTube chat and we’ll get to as many of them as we can and we’ll take a look at a little bit of the cross-examination of Jennifer McCabe. As we take your questions, I want to bring in Natalie Whittingham Burrell. She is a defense attorney, also known on YouTube as Natalie Lawyer Chick. So, Natalie, I want to get your thoughts. How do you think the cross-examination of Jenner Jennifer McCabe has been going? because she’s been on the stand now for the better part of 2 and 1/2 3 days. And this cross-examination has gone on and on and on for hours. And really, she is a critical witness because if the jury believes that she did that 2:27 a.m. Google search about how long to die in the cold, if they believe that happened at 2:27 and not 6:23 a.m., um, then that bolsters Karen Reed’s conspiracy claim. If they believe it happened at 6:23 a.m., the whole thing kind of falls apart. Right. Exactly. And so, she’s a very important and key witness. That’s why she would be on the stand for that long with witnesses that are this important. Many times you want to get in and get out with them. However, this case is unique because they are alleging the defense a cover up in a conspiracy. And since they’re alleging that cover up in there in that conspiracy, that really does go quite deep of how they need to question her reliability, her credibility, and who she spoke with before and after that search was made. And again, it’s very unique here that the government, the Commonwealth is questioning the veracity of the celery extraction, showing that the search was done at a particular time. Usually the government relies on celebrate and so that is a lot of fodder for the defense to play with in cross-examination. I’m not surprised that it’s gone on for this long and that it’s become heated and it’s been frequently interrupted by objections. Uh do you do you think it’s been effective though? I mean do you think that the cross-examination has been effective? because at times it seems like it’s just kind of dragging on and at least the other day it seemed like it was just kind of going in circles and your your testimony at this part um you know and looking at social media depending on where people fall on whatever side of this case because it is so divisive Jennifer McCabe is either doing really great or she’s just falling apart up there and she’s being evasive and things like that. So you watching this, how do you feel that the cross-examination has gone? You know, I think that you’re right. It’s almost like a roar test of how people are non- attorneys are seeing the cross- examination and the fact that it’s going on for so long. But I do think that it’s because um she’s not answering the questions very directly. And so I do think that that leaves open room for the defense to ask more questions because we have the right I’m a defense attorney. we have the right to have our questions answered as long as the questions are appropriate and are probitative of the issue at hand. And so since she’s not directly answering many of the questions, she is going to be subject to being reass. And it’s not like um Judge Canone is one to allow things to draw on for too long or that she’s extremely lenient with the defense. She’s not. she would have shut them down by now if the series of questioning was inappropriate. So, I think that if Miss McCabe was more forthcoming and direct in her answers and not evasive, the cross-examination would not be happening for as long as it has been happening. Uh, let’s get now to some of the questions that people are submitting into the YouTube chat. And if you’re just joining us, if you have questions that you want Natalie and I to answer, drop them in that YouTube chat and we’ll get to as many of them as we can. Um are Nita Phillips is asking is Michael Proctor on Commonwealth’s or defense witness list? Um I think he’s probably on both. Um but you know he is basically the Commonwealth’s witness. The defense is basically Natalie I feel like an opening making them own him. I mean he’s been fired. He has been disgraced over what happened with this investigation and the text messages. So, um, he may be on both witness lists, but he’s the state he’s the state’s witness in this case. I mean, he’s their guy. Yes, he is the state’s witness. The state can choose not to call him, though, because he is so uh such such a hot wire. And so the reason that the defense would put him on their list is in case the state doesn’t call him, they would call him, but it would be difficult because once they call him, he’s a direct examination witness and they wouldn’t be able to ask him the leading questions that they need to really probe his bias and his misbehavior during the investigation that he was fired for. So it it kind of limits the way in which they ask the questions, but it’s a safeguard that defense attorneys do. If you have a really important states witness who’s really good for you, meaning they’re really bad for the state, there’s a risk that the prosecution just does not call them and so you put them on your list as well just to be on the safe side. Of course, they’re going to call him. He collected evidence. He interviewed witnesses, but the defense has them on their list just to be safe. You know, a question I have for you, Natalie, um is we hear a lot about Trooper Proctor’s notes in this case. And when he when Ellen Jackson was cross-examining um Jennifer McCabe, we hear about Trooper Proctor’s report. We hear about Trooper Proctor, he was taking notes. And she said, “Well, he was taking notes.” Or Alan Jackson said he was taking notes. I’m like, “Where are the recordings?” Um are you telling me this guy was interviewing witnesses and not recording these things? So um you know notes I’m not hearing any recording you know any talk about recordings. It shocks me in this day and age when we have investigators who are not physically recording interviews with witnesses that it is frequent. It’s it’s frustratingly common I guess is the best way to put that. Um, I would hope as a defense attorney that the majority of or all of witness interviews would be audio and or visually recorded. However, the vast majority of them are not. Many witness interviews, especially if it’s not usually they’re going to record the defendant, they’re going to record if there’s a surviving victim, maybe they’ll record them. But um to be fair, a lot of the times when police are interviewing multiple amounts of people in a large case, it is very um difficult for them to schedule everyone to come into an interview room that’s being recorded. But with the advent of cell phones, just take out your cell phone and start recording and tell them that you’re recording and take the interview. But yes, it’s very very frustrating and very common that what you have to go on with witness statements many times is the officer’s recitation of what the witness said. Sometimes they don’t even get the witness to commit their statement to writing which is extremely helpful um to both the prosecution and the defense because as we all know by the time a case goes to trial it could be years later from when the incident actually occurred. So people would need to refresh their recollection. So yes, unfortunately Michael Proctor is not alone in that. I think very sloppy practice of not getting witness statements recorded. It’s not uncommon. Uh, you know, Natalie, I want to mention that we like to do polls during our lunch hour and we’ve been having some polls put up all week long and one that we put up today was is this cross losing the jury? Uh, right now um it says 708% of the say that this cross is not losing the jury and 22% say the cross is losing the jury. So, we have some pretty um strong willed people, very opinionated people on one side of that issue in the chat right now. Uh let’s go to our next question. This is from Kayla Rose. Kayla Rose asks, “Why did Jen never call John again after Karen called her in a panic? If someone calls and says a friend you love is missing, would you call them?” Uh so that that is a good question. you know, she’s trying to, you know, get a hold of John. Um, she called him once, though, it sounds like. Um, so, you know, I know you can’t read Jen McCabe’s mind, but is there a reason you think that maybe she only called John once? I think an innocent explanation would be that she was flustered. Um, you know, that maybe she’s calling around to other people. Um, it could be something like that. You don’t expect if you know, she’s done nothing. You don’t expect that something like that will happen. Somebody just goes missing. So on one hand, it can be, you know, explainable by the prosecution, but that is just one data point in a multiple set of data points that seem a bit odd. Again, I don’t know what happened here. There’s no way for us to know, but it is strange the text message about or this the Google search and the time period that Celebrite says that it was. Again, I I work with Celebrite a lot. Um the prosecution works with Celebrite a lot. Um it’s very concerning that they’re trying to downplay the time period that’s in that phone extraction. That’s I really find that very hard to believe that they’re doing that. And then on top of that, you know, only calling him one time and other things of that nature. It seems a bit strange, but there could always be an innocent explanation for it. It’s just something that the defense is going to have to point out. And you’re when you’re talking about downplaying, you’re talking about the 227 um thing. I mean, I’m assuming that’s what you’re talking about, the 227 Google search result, right? If Celbrite says that the Google search happened at 227, the Google search happened at 227. Yeah, they they said that that’s when Ian Whiffin said that’s when her tab was open and then she reopened when she reopened that tab at um 6:23 or whatever, it was the same tab and it was like some kind of software issue and that’s why it showed up as 227. So, I mean that he kind of went through that the other day for the jury. Um but the defense is saying no, no, no, it was 227. Yeah, I’m I’m more inclined to believe that it was at 227, but you know, we’ll see. We’ll see what the jury says. That’s the thing about the Celbrite extraction. It’s just very that’s just very very bizarre to me. Um if it if the Celebrite shows that the tab was originally opened at 227, it’s it’s there’s there it’s just a onetoone copying of what’s on the phone and what the phone did. So, well, we will see. We will see what the jury thinks in the end because they will hear from um other experts about this both on the defense side and the Commonwealth side. Uh let’s get to our next question. My two cents asks, “Can a mistrial be called at any point or just at the end of the trial?” Natalie. Oh, it’s a really good question. It can a mistrial can be called and should be called any time that there’s manifest necessity for it. So, it doesn’t have to be at the end of trial. you it’s supposed to be called for when the issue arises that would force a mistrial. Uh and that is that is true. Uh it can happen at any point in time. Uh let’s get now to Haley. Um Haley asks, “Jen said she did not go in ASAP because Karen said she hit him slashcracked her tail light. Hasn’t she previously said she learned this after police arrived? You know, I’m I’m not sure because I do know that Jen testifies to her saying something along the lines of um you know, I hit him and then the question from the defense was was she really saying did I hit him? Right? Like the way that Jen was really characterizing it. But I think it’s but I think it’s accurate that what what she says now that she that she heard Karen say, “I hit him.” And the question is only really how was um Karen saying that. But I I could be wrong about that fact because it’s been a while since I heard her original testimony for the first trial. Yeah. And there’s there’s been so many, you know, she said this morning, I’ve I’ve talked about this so many times and testified so many times and been interviewed so many times. Um, but you know, I thought she said that Karen said she hit him at the scene, but then Karen said something to the effect of that she had shown them she and Carrie her tail light at the house uh before they went over there. So, um, it’s a lot it’s a lot to keep track of. It’s a lot to keep track of. Um, Amanda asks, “Why is Jen McCabe allowed to expand on her answers?” And I think that, you know, the judge even said today, kind of later in the day, answer the question you’re asked because sometimes it is like a yes or no question. And she is adding to her answers. Right. Right. And I think that’s some of why this cross-examination has gone on for so long because she’s trying to explain. She’s trying to, you know, add additional context. She’s not just answering the questions that she’s been given. She should not be allowed to. Um, but you know, it’s ultimately up to the judge what the judge does and does not allow. And a lot of times when you’re cross-examining someone to object to the answer to your own question can be a bit awkward, but if it’s nonresponsive or it’s going beyond the scope of the question, it is certainly appropriate to cut that witness off and say, “That’s not what I asked you. Please answer my question.” it. The why really comes down to either she is being evasive um or she feels like she’s under attack and feels like she needs to give more of an explanation. Why the judge is allowing it is a totally different question. It’s the judge’s discretion on how to conduct the courtroom and it would be up to an appellet court if there was a conviction to say whether or not the judge was right or wrong and how she was ruling on the objections to the way in which m Miss McCabe was answering the questions. But we know that she was going too far in answering them because the judge directed her to just answer the question. Uh, AOK has our next question. AOK asks, “Why wouldn’t she, Jen McCabe, yell to Brian Albert? He’s a cop and knows CPR.” So AOK is wondering why in instead of calling 911, she didn’t just, you know, go up to Brian Albert, you know, yell to him from the lawn, I guess, hey, get down here. Um, you know, you know, CPR, get down here and help save John, right? Yeah. It’s, you know, you don’t know why people do the things that they do. And the thing is that it’s now the jury’s job to piece everything together from what previously happened. And many times people bring into deliberations as they’re supposed to do their common sense and their common life experiences. So if you as an everyday person under common sense under your everyday life experiences don’t think that that makes sense then maybe to the jury that won’t make sense either and they’ll think that there’s something underlying that like some type of conspiracy or it could just be again the panic of the moment. You don’t expect to see someone laying down in the in the snow in your front yard. You don’t expect to see that and so not everyone is going to react rationally in those circumstances. I don’t know if that’s necessarily how she’s coming across in her cross-examination and her direct testimony, but that is definitely a possibility. Well, and and can I just like play devil’s advocate here for a second? Uh a cop, you know, sleeping up in his house who might know CPR is not going to be able to do as much as a bunch of par a bunch of paramedics coming to the scene in an ambulance. I mean, you got to get the guy to the hospital if he, you know, it sounds like when they found him, he’s in bad shape. He’s sitting there unconscious, covered in snow with big, horribly huge, you know, marks on his eyes or whatever. Um, we’ve seen the pictures. We’re not going to show them to you, but I mean, he was in bad bad shape and there was some blood and um, he needed medical care. Of course, he needed CPR. Um, and yeah, maybe Brian Elbert could have helped with that until the EMTs arrived, but I would think, you know, your best bet is to get the EMTs there ASAP. And you know, you know, that’s for Jen McCabe to explain why she why she did what she did. Uh, let’s get to our next question. Hollis MJP, who I actually know Hollis a little bit from YouTube. Uh, Hollis MJP asks, “Did they ever swab the fire hydrant for blood or hair?” H, I’m not sure about that. And we’re I’m not so sure about that. Natalie, do you have the answer to that question? Well, I would be surprised that they did because on the scene they were collecting blood with bread solo cups, so I don’t think they did, but I I haven’t seen any indication of that one way or the other. That’s a really good question. And that would if the answer is no or if it goes unanswered in the question that would in in the trial itself that would be something that would be good to point out by the defense for the jury to consider in their deliberations the lack of collecting certain evidence. Yeah. Uh that is a great question though because that makes you wonder could he have you know there have been so many questions about that horrific head injury that John O’Keefe suffered and just how that happened. So, um it’ll be interesting to see if we get some information about that um during the trial. Let’s get to another question. Um Pixie, does the judge interject too much? She seems to be asking and answering for this particular witness more so than the others. That’s a that’s a difficult question, right? Because the judge can ask questions. The judge can seek clarification if they are not understanding something or if they think it’s a potential that the jury is not understanding something. Right? If there’s a line of inquiry that they think is important to the outcome of the case, the judge can definitely ask questions. Should the judge interact or ask more questions of one witness than others, it’s going to be a case-byase basis. The the thing that we want to always be um aware of as practitioners is to look out for the judge maybe expressing um maybe trying to rehabilitate a certain witness more than other witnesses. Right? If it seems like it’s more like rehabilitation, trying to make clean up the answers for Miss McCabe, then that could be problematic. It’s certainly something the defense can preserve through an objection. But otherwise, I it’s hard to say that it’s too much because it’s the judge’s discretion to do so. And anything that’s the judge’s discretion, it’s hard to say that there’s too much of them doing it because they’re just allowed to do it. And you know, the other day, Natalie, um you know, um we had um Katherine Loftess on and she raised a really good point that a lot of times when the judge is doing this, it’s because Hank Brennan, Hank Brennan has raised an objection and then the judge will kind of ask a question. Um, and I think that a lot of times maybe the viewers, maybe the mic isn’t close enough to Hank Brennan and they’re not hearing that. So maybe the the judge cleans up the question or clears it up um and just ask asks the question more directly. Um, so I I don’t know if that’s part of this as well, but I actually find it kind of refreshing because I feel like the judge kind of moves it along sometimes. she gets in there and directly asks the witness the question, right? Yeah. And and I can see that. I know that as defense council, I would be frustrated by that because it is the prosecutor’s job to know how to ask the question appropriately and it’s not the judge’s job to advocate from the bench or to be uh an attorney from the bench and to ask the questions more appropriately for the prosecution. if she is cleaning up the questions or making them more efficient or making them more appropriate under the rules of evidence um to be asked for one side over the other, that would actually be inappropriate. So, I don’t actually like that at all. Um I think it’s more fine where if it’s like equal on both sides or both sides have asked their questions and then she says, “You know what? I have some more questions based on what’s been asked. I need to know this, this, and this. I need this thing clarified. I think that that’s okay. But when there’s an objection raised to the form of the question and then the court steps in and reask the question in an appropriate way, you’re taking over the role of the prosecutor or whichever side is asking that question. Interesting. All right, let’s uh get to our next poll question. We have a poll up right now and it is asking, “Do you believe Jim McCabe was colluding with other witnesses and law enforcement?” Uh right now 87% of the poll takers, if you will, uh say yes and 13% say no. So that’s our poll that’s up right now. Um if you want to go ahead and vote some more, we’ll put another poll up here in just a little bit. Uh our next question is from Tom H. Why is the judge issuing such a big disclaimer to the jury before the text messages were brought in? And she did. she kind of um said what how these text messages were supposed to be um I I don’t want to say how they were supposed to be taken. Um but she did kind of say something to the jury outlining something. It was a it was an instruction about the text messages. So why why would she do that? I didn’t understand the question. I’m sorry. Could you reread the the person’s question? Yes. I’m sorry. It was um why is the judge issuing such a big disclaimer to the jury before the text messages were brought in? And these were the text messages between Jen McCabe and you know everybody on these text chains. And she said she should have read this instruction the other day about the text messages. And I think she was saying something to the effect of um you know the text messages you know you can determine or you’re supposed to determine or that you should be determining. I I can’t recall exactly how it was worded, but it was an instruction about um the person sending them and then the person receiving them and things like that. So, it was an instruction regarding the text messages, right? So, sometimes when communications come in, text messages, phone calls, emails, things like that, these are out of court statements, right? And so, for the hearsay rule, they wouldn’t come in because it’s not being offer if it’s being offered for the truth of what’s in those statements. But then there are some type of um exceptions that those things would fall into. So what she’s doing is she’s directing them to the exception. This is coming in not for you to really consider the truth of what they’re saying, but for some other reason. Either was there a conspiracy? Do these people know each other? Were they talking about the event itself? Um was there some type of plan that they were putting together? Not necessarily whether or not the the things that they’re stating, are they true or not, but and and should it be something that the jury adopts as a fact in the case, but instead is it showing the state of mind of the people talking to each other? Is it showing their plan? Is it showing a conspiracy? Is it showing an agreement? Things of that nature. So that’s what she’s doing. She’s just limiting it down to what the text messages are actually being introduced for so that the jury doesn’t go far a field and start thinking, “Oh, just because this is in the text messages means that this fact is automatically true.” Uh, our next question comes from Lauren HB. Uh, has having McCabe on the stand, Jen McCabe on the stand for three days with not much revelation, is this going to be problematic for the defense? Is this exhausting the jury? Um, so I’m wondering how do you feel about that? I Is Jen McCabe being on the stand for the entire day on Wednesday, much of the day today, and then part of the afternoon on Tuesday, is it too much? It could be, but again, like I said, we don’t know how the jury is reading this, right? We can’t see them. I we can’t gauge their facial expressions. We, as the general audience, that’s not inside of a courtroom, right? So, we don’t know what they’re feeling and what they’re thinking. And even when you can see them, you don’t know what they’re thinking. I tell people that all the time. Just because they look a certain way doesn’t mean that that’s exactly what they’re thinking because they can kind of fake you out sometimes. And so we don’t know if they’re being exhausted by this. But that is a risk. That is a risk. It could be read as she is it’s exhausting them. The defense is not getting to the point the defense is not showing this conspiracy. Or it could be read as there must be a conspiracy of foot because she’s not answering the questions which is causing them to have to ask her more and more questions to nail her down. Why is she being evasive? If there was no conspiracy, there would be no reason to be evasive. So I don’t know how the jury is reading it, but yes, from the commenter’s question, that is a risk that they could see it as boring the jury and making them tune out, which is not effective. And it, you know, I would like to hear from somebody actually sitting there in the courtroom how the jury how they look. Um, you know, it sounded like the other day they were looking a little bored uh with the cross and then I read something today where they were, you know, they looked attentive and they were, you know, listening. Um, but you know, that could be very tedious. Um, so let’s let’s get now to our next question and we kind of covered this before. Um, but I think we can both both offer our thoughts on this. Uh, this is from Firefly Firefly Bakery Suites. Why wouldn’t Jen run into the house into the Albert’s house instead of calling? Uh, and I think that Firefly means instead of calling 911. Yeah. You know, we just brought that up just now, but honestly, you don’t know. Number one, but number two, it’s it is a bit it. So, I was thinking of something you said, Ajanette, which is, you know, don’t you want to get the professional the 911? Don’t you want to get them there right away? And sure, but there’s nothing stopping you from calling up uh to the person in the house who has the training and saying, “Hey, come down here right now.” and helping this person and also calling 911 at the same time. There’s people do it all the time. They call 911 and they call somebody for help or they themselves administer CPR with the direction of 911. You know, the first responders, as they know, their preference is for the person to be worked upon right away. There’s a first responder in the house. So, him not being alerted is a little strange. Again, I said it could have I don’t want to cast as a virgin here because I don’t know what happened. It could have some type of in innocent reason such as just her brain was scrambled. She sees someone in very very bad shape and the only thing she can think is 911 911. But I’m not going to pretend like it wouldn’t be optimal to call the person in the house also who has the training to be able to help him because he can get there faster than 911 can. Right. And I mean she did eventually go in the house to get her sister and Brian Albert. Um but I mean I I kind of look at it as call 911. I mean they’re they’re the ones who can get him to the hospital. He’s laying in the snow. He’s got blood on his face. He’s got these goose egg eye things going on. He’s laying there unconscious and I mean all Brian Albert can do is maybe do some CPR and you know I listened to the 911 call again last night and there there is talk about doing chest compressions and mouthtomouth and I guess Karen Reed was doing the mouthtomouth part um and so Carrie Roberts I believe was doing the chest compressions and I think Jen McCabe was going to get in there and do that at some point. So, um, yeah, I would think 911 should be your first call and then Brian Albert is second or whatever, but I would think you would want to get the professional help there immediately because if you’re laying there unconscious in the snow with all of those injuries, you need to get to the get get him to the hospital ASAP. Um, so I don’t know, that’s just that’s just my thinking. Um, let’s go now to um our poll question, our latest poll question. Uh, this is the one we have up right now. Do you feel the judge has been biased during this trial? Um, seems like we have some people in the chat that have some very strong opinions. 84% say yes and 16% say no. So, we will um put another poll up here very shortly. Uh, let’s get to our next question from Jules B. Would it be possible to reverse your car? This is a question about, you know, what the Commonwealth has asserted regarding Karen Reed’s car. Uh, would it be possible to reverse your car and go 24 miles hour several feet from the house when there’s snow on the ground? Wouldn’t your tires spin no traction? What are your thoughts on that, Natalie? That’s a really good question. I That is outside of my area of expertise. This is something where, right, this is something where we as attorneys, this is why we hire experts. We know the law. We don’t know mechanics and physics and medicine and any of those other things that would be implicated by that question. It’s an excellent question, but maybe for someone who deals with mechanics and physics over somebody like me, I would not know the answer to that question. Uh, Raindrops and Feathers has another question. Um, if Jen butt dialed so much, there was talk, this was the first time we really heard during testimony about the butt dials today. Um, if Jen butt dialed so much, wouldn’t John’s phone have voicemails as evidence? Um, yeah, I would I would think so. I mean, if you if you butt dial somebody, um, which, you know, I think this is a first for me. I don’t say butt dial very much on on TV or the word butt on TV very much, but hey, there’s a first time for everything. Um, so if she had butt dialed him and the call went to voicemail, you would think there would be some voicemails with all that background noise and pocket noise and what have you. Yeah, there’s a there is a few things that Jen says um in testimony and she testified to this in the last trial as well that don’t comport with my own common experience, I think is a better way to put it. Um, and so if you have enough of those data points where the person is saying things that just don’t comport with what you understand the situation to be in your own personal life, it becomes difficult to believe them. Um, but yes, the nature of a butt dial is that you accidentally press the number somehow and so you’re not hanging it up. It’s just going to ring through and then it will pick up noise on the voicemail because you don’t know to hang it up and then it just hangs up when the voicemail disconnects. And so it is strange. Maybe one of them you butt dial for a second and then immediately, you know, unpress it, but over and over again would lead me to think that some of those calls at least would have gone to voicemail. And it doesn’t seem like they did. Yeah. And it it’ll be interesting to see on redirect if there’s any discussion about that. Uh let’s go now to some of the testimony from today on cross-examination. And we heard about um a text that Matt McCabe had sent to um a group chat involving Jen McCabe and some of the Alberts. And he had talked about how there, you know, there was this discussion about how there was a news crew at the DNA sub shop owned by Chris Albert there in Canton. And Matt McCabe said in a group text, uh tell them that he never went in the house. And so, you know, Allan Jackson, one of the big themes today was that everybody was colluding on text message to get their stories straight. And so, there was a big exchange about this. So, let’s take a listen to this bit of testimony and we’ll talk about it on the other side. Julie said channel 4 is in DNA. And that’s from whom? Brian. So, Brian Albert is explain what that text means. So Brian Albert is telling us that channel that Julie told him channel 4 is in DNA. Who’s Julie? I’m sorry. Julie Albert. Thank you. Let’s go to the next text. Miss McCabe, can you read what this text says, who it’s from, and who it’s to? This is from Matt McCabe to myself, my sister Nicole, and Brian. Can you read it for us, please? Sure. Eating, I assume. Ask Chris to ask some questions. Tell them the guy never went into the house. What does tell them the guy never went into the house mean to you? How did you take that? I took that as John never came in the house. Who’s the guy? John. John O’Keefe. Yes. And the beginning of that sentence is tell them that the guy never came in the house. Correct. Yes. And the sentence before that is ask Chris to ask some questions. Correct. Yes. So this is Matt McCabe directing that Chris asked questions of Channel 4. Correct. I wouldn’t say directing whatever word you want to use. He was No, I’m saying that Matt suggesting I think we’re all looking to find out what happened. So Matt was like, “Ask some questions. What do they know?” And also indicating that Chris should tell them the guy never came in the house. Correct. John never came in the house. Correct. Okay. What did you make of that, Natalie? Um, do you think this is just much a duo about nothing? Just some people, you know, chit cchatting with each other on group text or do you think there’s more there? There. So, this is a homicide trial. These are defense attorneys, Mr. Jackson. There is no no such thing as too little, right? We make a lot out of a little. And I would make a lot out of that. I would make a lot out of that. And I’m I I I really am very happy that I’m here to react to that part of the text message because I would turn that up so bad. That is just so much fodder for the defense right there because the implication would be the argument would be that you’re saying go out to the news and ask them questions. Tell Chris this. So he’s directing. Directing is colluding and conspiring. Telling people what to do. go out there and talk to the news and tell them that the guy never came into the house. Get our version of events out there to the news by asking them questions and leaking information to them that the guy never came into the house, which makes it seem like a conspiracy. It makes it seem like we got to get our story out there as soon as possible. The guy and then also calling him the guy seems kind of heartless and cold, right? They may not know him very well personally, but I would play that up as well. So, the thing is that a a um criminal trial, especially a homicide trial, is a trial by inches for the defense. It’s tiny little cuts in the state’s case to raise reasonable doubt. And that is a big gash. Any defense attorney would make hay out of that. Yeah. And Matt McCabe obviously is Jen McCabe’s husband. So, it’s like, okay, let’s get Matt McCabe up on the stand. I think we probably will hear from him. he testified in the last trial. Uh so, you know, but but it is funny. He is kind of directing them to do things. Um so that it’s an interesting little thing there. Uh let’s get now to our next question. This is from Dippityd One. Uh why wasn’t Brian Albert’s house searched for any evidence and who determined it not be searched? We don’t know why. Uh there has never been a satisfactory explanation for that. You know, oversight, we immediately determined that they were not suspects. That is uh ridiculous because they you can’t immediately determine that. You have to investigate and then rule them out. Um which would be totally fine. A full investigation rules them out. Nothing wrong with that. Um the standard procedure would be to go into the house where a person is uh deceased outside of. I can confidently say that. I don’t care what jurisdiction that you’re in. So, the only why in real life would either be incompetence, uh just outright incompetence or uh paying too much difference to the fact that some of the people in the home were law enforcement officers. Um and those would be the more innocent explanations. And then obviously there’s a more sinister explanation of this alleged conspiracy, which again I’m not comfortable asserting one way or the other because I just don’t know enough. But it’s it would not be a a good strategy not to search the home where someone was dead in front of. That would be a terrible strategy. Yeah. And here’s my thing. I mean, here’s my thing. Um, even if you think this is a vehicular homicide case. I mean, I I’ve, you know, I’ve I’ve always talked to like I’ve talked to a cop who ran a homicide unit who always said, you know, it’s your it’s your job to eliminate doubt, not to create it. So, why not go through the house? Why not ask to look at the house? Walk through the house. I mean, just do it. There’s been many things I’ve thought about this case where I’m saying, again, I don’t know about I don’t know if there was a conspiracy. I have no idea. I don’t know if Karen Reed actually hit him or not. I have no idea. But I do know that all of those questions that I have are reasonable doubt. And that reasonable doubt could have been cleared up by a thorough investigation. The one thing that I’m sure of is that the investigation here was not thorough before they brought charges against Karen Reed. Uh let’s get now to our next uh question. This one is from Smoothie One. Uh Smoothie One asks, “Do you feel Higgins had other things he wanted to hide on his phone that had nothing to do with Karen and John?” And of course, this is Brian Higgins, the ATF agent who testified in the last trial. He was at the house that night. Uh we haven’t gotten to him in this trial yet, Natalie, but you know, he apparently threw his phone away at a military base apparently after they were told they could get rid of their phones. Um but the phone was destroyed. Um and I I I don’t know why. Um I guess that’s just what some people do. I I mean when my when I get rid of my old phone, when I get a new phone, I either trade it in or I throw it in a drawer in the house. So, um, that’s been a there’s been a lot of talk about that. Like, was there something on his phone that he didn’t want anybody to see that wasn’t related to this? Yeah, I think the commenter’s question is another one of those questions where we will never know the actual answer, the actual reason why he did that. The phone was destroyed. We don’t know what what’s on it, but that’s a possibility. And another pos, it is a possibility that he threw away the phone uh because and and destroyed it because he had, you know, maybe some adult materials on there he didn’t want someone to see or something like that. Or it could be that he was participating in a conspiracy to cover up the homicide. Um but we just don’t know. It’s a very strange thing to do. As you said, Anjanette, I’m think as you said that I’m thinking right now my nightstand has about three phones in it. My iPhone 12, 11, 13, you know, are sitting in my nightstands right now. I don’t know even know what to do with them, but I don’t think I would go physically destroy them so that no one could ever look at them again. It’s very strange. Yeah, I I actually cleaned up uh a while ago. Side note, I cleaned up and like got like recycled them. I made sure all the junk was off of them and then I put them in this I took them and recycled them because I’m like, why am I just hanging on to these things? This is silly. Um but yeah, you can apparently recycle them. I never want them ending up in like a landfill or something like that. So, Brian Higgins, recycle your phones. You don’t have to destroy them. My goodness. Um, okay, here we go. Next, um, question. What about Jen McCabe’s Google search? We kind of touched on this earlier. Uh, what about, um, Jen McCabe’s Google search, how long to die in the cold at 2:27 a.m.? This was a pretty sus. I don’t think it’s had enough attention in this trial. Well, today’s cross-examination kind of ended on that. Um, there was a back and forth about it and Jennifer McCabe saying she was searching for this sports stuff and her uh daughter’s scores or whatever, Hakamok sports and something else. And she maintains she did not search for that um at 2:27 a.m. that she didn’t do it until 6:23 when Karen Reed um asked her to do so at the Fairview Road address. So, it is interesting though that when it shows up on that graph that we just had up on the screen that it shows up at 227 and at 623 and it both times it’s it’s hos ho with the typo. So, isn’t it bizarre though Natalie that it shows up both times with that typo? That is weird. That’s why you know for me that’s a credibility issue for me. It really really is. the fact that it’s on there now. You know, sometimes there I thought they were going to argue the the Commonwealth that there was a time conversion issue because, you know, um it’s uh Celbrite is extracted in UTC time instead of EST or MDT or anything like that. But what they’re saying is that it’s some type of glitch or something. And I just I really I’m telling you, I have a hard time with that. It’s showing up with the same exact typo at 227 and 627 makes me think that that search was made at 227 that the tab sat there and then she reaccessed the tab at 627. That’s what it seems like to me. That comports with common sense and that’s also the fact that I understand celebrate extractions and so do most prosecuting bodies to be extremely accurate. So, it’s very strange to me to argue that that 227 that somehow it posted something back in time that was that was searched for 4 hours later. That’s just I don’t really find that to be possible. Right. So, I’m I’m having a hard time with that data set as well. I don’t want to outright call her dishonest. I just don’t I I just don’t know how to reconcile that. Yeah. Ian Whiffin went through it all the other day and and it took a while. um and he explained it and um he you know I think this first came to light because Richard Green the defense expert contacted him and said said I don’t understand this what does this mean and he started looking into it um and then he tried to call him back and he said he never you know Richard Green never called him back and so then he wrote a blog post about it there’s like this whole thing about it um so it was intense the other day though the cross-examination about this and then the redirect So, uh, it’s definitely going to be a battle of the experts issue. Let’s now look at, um, some more of the testimony from earlier today. And this is where Alan Jackson was asking Jennifer McCabe about phone calls, uh, that she made that morning. Remember, uh, at 4:53 a.m., that’s when this whole thing started. She said she got a phone call from John O’Keefe’s niece, his teenage niece Kaye um at and that Kaye was calling her because Jennifer or Karen Reed said, “I need you to call Jen McCabe. You know, John never came home last night.” But then there were calls after that. So, let’s listen to uh the cross-examination about that. When the Commonwealth asks questions about who you contacted that moment at the grand, you didn’t need to have your recollection refreshed with anything. You said, “I talked to Karen Reed. I called Julie Albert. I called Tommy.” Correct. Correct. And that’s exactly what you told Trooper Prince as well. Karen Reed, Julie Albert, Tomi. Is that right? Yes. Correct. But you did make another phone call that morning that you left out of both of those statements, didn’t you? I’m not sure. At 5:07 a.m., you called over to 34 Fair View, didn’t you? If it’s in my phone record, then I must have. It’s in your phone records that you’re aware of. Well, let me ask it a different way. You’re aware that your phone records actually show that at 507 you called the 34th Fair View Nicole Albert’s phone. Correct. Correct. It shows also that that call lasted 38 seconds. Correct. I’m not sure what it shows. You actually spoke to your sister Nicole that morning. I did not speak to my sister. No. So that 38 second call went to voicemail. I’m not sure. All I can tell you is I never spoke to my sister Nicole that morning prior to waking her up. But you do acknowledge that you made a phone call at 5:07 to Julie Albert, I’m sorry, to Nicole Albert, your sister, over at 34:30 in those early morning hours. Correct. Yes. I learned after when I am first being questioned. It’s days after it was a chaotic morning. I remembered the waterfall Julie then Tom Bey calling to my sister wasn’t as po important in my ingrained in my mind at that point. What did you make of all of that Natalie made of that? That it is interesting might some might say convenient that she is alleged to have con uh conspired with her family members to cover up something. Um and she doesn’t remember calling those same family members, her sister in particular. Uh but it could be again all explained by the heat of the moment, right? and not expecting this to happen and having inconsistencies in her story because of how many times she’s questioned so close to this event. But if I’m the defense, and that’s where I’m putting myself here to comment on this, if I’m the defense, then that is extremely suspicious. Um, what did you guys talk about? And I would not I would not play it as though you can believe she didn’t actually speak to her sister. You take that in conjunction with the multiple butt dials, it’s just hard to credit her when she talks about who she communicated with and what they communicated about in the wake of uh his in the wake of wake of his death. I want to remind everybody that court should be coming back into session in a few minutes um around 2:00 p.m. So, it’s 1:57 Eastern time right now. Um, but sometimes we think courts coming back into session really quickly or when they say they will and then things happen. The other day they blew a fuse so they were delayed. So just stay with us, hang out. Um, and we’ll get you back into court. I promise as soon as it resumes. Until then, keep those questions coming to us. Um, we can uh tell you though if you’re looking to keep up with this trial, we have a really great way for you to do that and I’m going to tell you about it right now. It is a Wondery Plus podcast put together by Law and Crime. It’s called Karen the Retrial and you can find it on Wondery Plus and Apple podcasts. Uh we’re going through the whole trial. It’s a really really good podcast. We did one for the first trial and people loved it and I think people are really going to like this one as well. We have some great people in there commenting on it. So check it out. Check it out. You don’t want to miss it. All right, now back to the questions and keep them coming. Um, our next question is uh from Melanie Ann. Why does the prosecution not have to specify why they are objecting just objection sustained? Um, you know, I don’t know if that’s I don’t know if that’s happening. Usually, you do have to say why objection and then give a reason. Is it possible we’re not hearing it or what what’s the deal there, Natalie? Yeah, I’m hoping that we’re not hearing it because they should be the basis for council’s 10 minutes late. I just as I was walking out here was that the Commonwealth needs to see me. Yeah, I’m sorry. Uh well, I hated to have to almost cut you off there, Natalie, but I think uh court is coming back into session. Um Karen Reed, I’m being told, uh just walked back into the courthouse. Um, so are we I need to know if she’s Okay, we’re going to go back to court. So, Natalie Whittingham Burrell, thank you so much for being with us and thanks to everybody else for being with us this lunch hour. We will see you back here next week during the lunch hour. Until then, have a great weekend and enjoy the redirect and the rest of the testimony for uh today from the Karen Reed retrial. We’ll see you back here Monday. All right. So, council wanted to see me do here or at zar. I have no preference. All right. If it’s something to be done in open court, go right ahead. So, we had mentioned earlier at the end of Miss McCabe’s testimony. I have clips that I would like to play. There is a dispute regarding two of them and I’ve given previous notice to the defense. they’ve uh would like different content in than I would and I would hope to have a court’s ruling before I played them. All right. So, I received an envelope court copy clip 17 was the only one I was given that was in that’s a new one. The other one previously turned over to the court. Okay. The ones we have a dispute on are clip 13 and clip 15. Okay. So, I viewed the other clips. Um, there’s an objection to 13 and 15. There’s an objection to them. All right. Uh, let’s play them. They’re quick, right? Yes. Play them very quickly. Just to clarify, it’s not that we object to them. It’s that they’re incomplete. So, should we finish her answer? So, we’re just asking it to be extended. So, we produced alternative clips. So, there’s two and All right. So the comm gets to play what they want and then you can play yours at some point too. I I then if we don’t have time I can wait to have a hearing on this. I don’t think the defense can play in self-s serving statements because they think it’s I haven’t seen it. All right. I saw clip 17. I have no problem with clip 17 coming in. I don’t think they have an objection to 17. The ones that are objectionable I know were pressed on a Friday. I can hold them till next week until uh the dispute becomes more clear for the court. Sounds like this is going to take more time than I thought. All right. So, I need what you have, Miss Little. I need that to review this weekend. All right. Anything else? The second issue is um I should approach South. Okay. Court is in session. Please be seated. Can we bring Miss McCabe in, please? Jurus, I know I said it was a 45minute lunch. I apologize. No one intended to waste your time like this, particularly when we don’t have much time involved. Miss McCay, please. All right. Whenever you’re ready, Mr. Brennan. Thank you, your honor. Good afternoon, Mr. McKay. Good afternoon. I want you to briefly tell us your memory of the weather when you first arrived at Fair View, when you left at Fair View, and when you returned the next morning a little after 6:00 a.m. Okay. Um when I arrived at Fair View um on the evening early hours of the 29th, the snow was falling, you know, just starting to fall, starting to stick to the street and onto the windshields. Um when I left Fair View, it had, you know, accumulated more where my husband had to wipe the windows. Um, and then the following morning when we were driving there, it was dark and um, the snow was like coming out the car like it was very hard to see. When you returned the next morning, we’ve seen video from the dash cam. The elements, the visibility, is that fairly depicted in that dash cam? Yes. With I mean obviously it was lit more because of the lighting and the spotlights, etc. From the moment that you first saw John until you went into your sister’s home, uh, is it fair to say a number of different first responders arrived? Yes. When the first responders arrived, did you see a number of different vehicles arrive? I did. Yes. Did any of them have their sirens on? Not that I recall. Uh, ambulance, fire truck, police cars. Do you remember ever any siren on at all? Not that I recall. No. And your sister and brother-in-law, you described how you went in the house and woke them up. They never came out before you woke them up. No, they didn’t. There was a house right next to where you found John before 34. Do you know what address that is? I would assume it’s 32. Did you ever see anybody come out of 32 Fair View and come over to John in the scene to help out? No. Across the street there’s a house that’s in between 32 and 34 if you cross the street. Yes. Did you ever see anybody come out of that house and offer assistance to help? No. There’s a house right across the street from 304 Fair View, isn’t there? Yes. And did anybody anybody ever come out of that house and come over to assist? No. when you were trying to help John that moment. Have you ever been trained in emergency aid? Probably 25, 30 years ago. Your state of mind. Best describe how you were feeling at that moment as far as your focus and what was going through your mind. Um I was shocked, confused, um nervous, scared, anxious. My friend was lying there on the ground. I had no idea what happened. I all I wanted to do was to get help for John and as fast as I could. You saw on the dash cam you spoke to a number of different people in law enforcement? Yes. In fact, during that day, a number of different people from law enforcement. Did they call you? I’ll allow that. Move along to Mr. Did a number of people call you from law enforcement that day um on the day of the 29th? Yes. Michael Proctor called me. Okay. Did you speak to law enforcement after that day? Yes. Were you asked to engage in interviews? Yes. Were you asked to testify in front of grand juries? Yes. Were you asked to come to court and testify? Yes. Did you ever once refuse to speak to the police? No. Did you ever once refuse to testify? No. When you were speaking to the police on that dash cam, it’s depicted on the dash cam. Why were you speaking to the police? Well, each officer that arrived had a set of questions of who it was, what happened, etc. So, I was answering all the questions because my main focus was John. Did you ever try to be evasive with the police? No, I told them everything I knew. Did you ever try to avoid speaking to them? Objection. The po. Did you ever hold anything back from the police when you spoke to them? I’ll allow that and then let’s move on. Mr. No, I didn’t. When you interviewed with many different law enforcement and people involved in this case, um, were you ever given an opportunity to review somebody else’s report after it was written and provide edits or your input? Objection. I’ll allow it. No. When you testified, are you testifying from what somebody wrote? They interpreted what you said months or years ago, or are you testifying from your own memory? Objection. All right. I’m testifying from my own memory. You called 911? Yes. And that morning when you called 911, well, let me ask you, do you wear an Apple Watch? I do have one. Yes. When you were speaking to 911 that morning and during that event, um, how did you feel? Um, extremely nervous, anxious, scared, uncertain. Do you think panicked? Do you think your heartbeat was up? Yes. at 2:27 the night before or around that time when you were looking up Hakamok before you went to bed. Were you of the same state of mind of fear and panic or were you in a very different state of mind? Objection. Strike the fear and panic part. You can answer that though. Were you of the same mind or different? Different. What was your state of mind at that time? I was relaxed. Just playing on my phone looking things before I went to bed. Do you think your heartbeat was as elevated that evening as it was the next morning? Sustained. When you made a search for how long to die in the cold or how’s long to die in cold? Is that something that you thought of for yourself? Objection. How long? Now. Why did you do it? Miss Reed asked me to Google it. And when was that? That was in the morning after we found him. And had you ever attempted either of those searches before Miss Reed asked you to do that? No, I didn’t. You were asked questions about the next day when you visited the O’Keefe home and you read some records. Do you remember those questions? Yes. Do you remember going to the O’Keefe home? I do. Yes. You went with who? With Carrie and our two daughters. Do you remember how many hours you spent with the O’Keefe family? I don’t remember the hour. How many hours? Say a few. Was it over three or four? Could have been. I’m not sure. What is the reason that you spend so much time at the O’Keefe home the next day? We went over to offer support, love, comfort, to be with them. You weren’t avoiding them, were you? No. Sustain. After you um left the O’Keefe home and reading the records, I don’t know if this is your memory. It was suggested it was 512. Um do you remember going to Fair View? I remember driving by Fair View on the way to uh Mike Lanks. When you went to Fair View, you asked questions about when you stopped by whether that meant you went in or were outside. Do you remember whether you went in or outside? We never went in. Have you seen your phone records that there are no calls to your sister when you went by Fair View at that time? Oh, I haven’t. No. And when you went by, you were asked about that. In fact, you had been asked about that before, hadn’t you? Whether you saw by Yes. And attorney Jackson showed you part of that statement. Yes. Did you when you were saying that’s part of the statement, did you read the whole statement to yourself? I did. And um to put that in completeness, had you under oath talked about the fact that you went by that day? I’m confused by your question. May I approach? Yes. Okay. You were shown page 181 and then 182. Yes. Okay. And so when you were asked about that before, had you in fact offered under wrote that you did go by Fair View? Yes. When you stopped by Fair View, according to the questions you were asked or the record you were asked to read, it was 4 minutes you stopped by Fair View. Does that sound like your memory? No, I know. We drove by, slowed down, and we were looking outside. Why did you want to go back to the very scene that you had seen that morning? I think we Carrie and I just I’m not really sure. I think we just drove down and we All right. So, your answer is not really sure. Okay. Next question. And then according to the records that were read to you, you went to Detective Lang’s house. Yes. And you were at that address for about 40 minutes, 50 minutes. Yes. You were read or shown certain text messages between you and some of your family. Yes. Was that a complete listing of the text messages in order that were on your phone? I had a lot of text messages with them on my phone. Yes. Were some missing from what you were shown? I’m not sure. Okay. You were asked about your state of mind. I’m going to ask you about some of those text messages in a minute. Mhm. Um, you were asked about calls and text messages to John O’Keefe. Yes. Have you ever inadvertently called anybody before on your iPhone? Objection. Allow it. Yes. Many times. And you were asked whether or not you remembered or knew that those calls were made to Mr. O’Keefe. Yes. Did you purposely make those calls? No, I do not believe so. If you if you inadvertently called on purpose, it wouldn’t be inadvertent, would it? True. John never did John never answer any of your calls after that 12:18 call? No, he didn’t. And when you were reaching out to him, did you reach out to him the next morning after you heard from the defendant? I did. Yes. What? Next question, Mr. Why were you reaching out to him? because I was trying to get in touch with him because Miss Reed said he didn’t come home. You were asked about your state of mind over the next couple days. Yes. And I’d like to ask you about some of the text messages reflecting your full state of mind over the next couple days. This has to be really brief. All right, jurors, you’re about to hear um some evidence. And remember, I told you this morning that before you consider any electronic communication in your deliberations, you must first find that it is more likely true than not that the person who authored or created or sent um transmitted this communication was in fact the person alleged to have done so. Uh if you do not find it is more likely true than not that the person alleged to have transmitted created these messages, then you may not consider the electronic communication in deciding this case. And remember, what you’re about to hear, you’re not to use for the truth of the statement. It goes simply to the state of mind of Ms. McCabe at the time of the message. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Bum. Thank you. May I approach with a C for the witness? Yes. Thank you. When law enforcement asks for your phone, was there any requirement you give that to them? Objection. Sustained. Did you voluntarily consent to give your entire phone to law enforcement? I’ll allow that. Yes, I did. I handed you a document that reflects your text messages from that morning and the next day. You were asked about some of them on the screen. Do you remember that? Yes. Okay. And you were asked how that affected your state of mind and the decisions that you were making. Correct? Yes. I want to read along and I’ll indicate if you look at the number on the left and then I’ll read it and you can let me know if I read it accurately. Okay. Starting at number 17, there’s a phone call saying, “Please answer. Who are you calling? Um I’m sorry. Where does it approach?” Yes. Oh, that’s the number right there. This will be the number. This would be the calling. This will be Okay. So, that’s John O’Keefe. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Sorry. All right. Number 17. Phone call. Please answer. Who are you calling? John O’Keefe. Do you know at that point where he is? No. 459 49 number 18. Karen is worried. We need to find you. John O’Keefe. 50440. Number 19. Please answer so I know you’re okay. Who you calling? J Keith number 26 51541 129. Okay. I’m trying to call people. I will be in touch soon. Do you know who you’re calling? I don’t recognize the number. What are you thinking at this point? I’m trying to find people. I’m trying to call people so that I can try to find John. Number 31, 52257 129. Okay. I tried to beat. Okay. I just talked to her. What are you referring to? I don’t know whose number this is. Okay. Um, at this point in the morning, you’re making these phone calls. Do you know where John is? No, I have no idea where he is. Turn to number 48. 12922 at 8:44. You’re texting any update. What is your state of mind? Which number is this? Number 48. 48. I believe that may be to Carrie Roberts and I’m trying to get an update from the hospital. You were asked about your relationship with Carrie Roberts at that time before that night. How many times had you met her? Once. And you said in the moment did that relationship change? Yes. Instantly. Was it for collusion? No. Let me ask you number 160. This is 129 at 2 in that afternoon. Do you have 160? Sorry. It’s okay. Okay, I’m here. 160. Do you see that? Mhm. Okay. I can’t stop seeing him in the snow. Jen, this is awful. Who’s that from? Carrie. Is your state of mind collusion? No. Objection. I’ll allow it. Don’t ask it again, please, Mr. 168 12922 at 20432. You’re calling Miss Roberts. Every time I close my eyes, it’s all I see. I feel like I’m going to vomit. I just can’t even. I know how close you two were. Can’t imagine how hard the situation is for you. Does this reflect your state of mind that day? Yes, I’ll allow it. We have to approach objections noted. Next question. We need to approach on this particular test. Come to Hey. Yes. This number I won’t read it. This number on top, whose number is that? That is nine. And the bottom number is who it’s going to. Yes. So, this text message, is this what you wrote? Yes, it is. To Carrie? Yes, it is. Okay. I won’t read that last text message again. However, it is correct that that text message was from you to Miss Roberts number 168. Yes, it was. And um the response in this text message number 169 from Miss Roberts to you. You were also This is awful, Jen. I’m in shock. Yes. Number 170. And this one is from Miss Roberts to you 12922 at 205 45. I literally am having wine. I don’t know what to do. Calm down. Yes. 171 at 20635 on 12922 from you to Miss Roberts. I know I am definitely in shock and it keeps hitting me. I just feel so sick. Is that accurate? Yes. I’m going to read one more. 172. And this is from Miss Roberts to you at 21341 on 12922. I don’t know what to even do. I’m so sorry for both of us. Is that accurate? Yes. Number 175. Again to Miss Roberts 21415 12922. Do you text? I talked to Peggy. I am devastated for them. Yes. And did you follow up seconds later at 21456 on 12922? I am so sick to my stomach. Yes. That day, did you have to speak to your children about what happened? I did. Yes. Was that part of your state of mind that day? Yes. I’ll allow that. Number 208 or 207. receive a text from this number. I don’t want to say it out loud, but if you could read it. 207. Do you know who that’s from? I don’t. Okay, we’ll move to the next one then. 20812922 34206. I’ve never felt so sick. Is that accurate? Yes. number 210 433401 12922. You text messaging somebody? Yes. Do you know who that is? I don’t just off of the number. Okay. And this text message is this from you to somebody? Yes. My mind is racing. I have that awful feeling in my gut like I am about I’ll allow it. sent by this group in the legend. My mind is racing. I have that awful feeling in my gut like I am about to puke. Besides seeing the awful image, trying to wrap my head around what happened to him. Is that accurate? Yes. 213. This is on 12922 at 43820. Do you know who was texting you? Yes. Who? My friend. Once things settle, you need to talk to someone and process the trauma. And then 214, you respond. 29 22 440 38 I have been shaking since this A.M. I feel so sick. Everything started to be a blur and all run into each other. Yes. And this is at 4:40 38 at 12922. Yes. And during that day, you’ve spoken to law enforcement. Yes. And the days that follow? Yes. I’m going to move to 12922 752. Um, if you look at number 289, please Okay. At 289. Is this a text from your sister Nicole? Yes. Any update? Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. And you were shown this text at 292. Yes. And you texted your sister. Carrie talked to cops. Kept it simple. Yes. What did you mean by that? I mean, uh, the cops had gone to her house, but she had had a long day and been drinking some wine, so she said she just made it quick. And you were sharing that with your sister? Yes. And was your sister part of many of these texts as part of your support group? Yes. Did anybody tell you that you shouldn’t rely on your family and have a conversation about what you went through? Objection. I’ll allow that. No, no one did. And during that uh text time, the one I just read to you was at 7:548. She turned to 296. 12922 at 75650. Did your sister text you? Okay. Try to get some sleep. Talk tomorrow. Yes. And did you text back at 7:57? Yes. But don’t feel pressure? Yes. And the next one? 298. At 75707, was your sister asking you for any updates? Yes. And at 75713, did she text you, “I love you. Don’t beat yourself up. You did the best you could. Yes. And just a few minutes later, one at number 308, please. 12922 at 8:01 p.m. Mhm. Did your sister again write to you okay texting in the AM if you hear anything later? Yes. You continued texting with her? Yes. Okay. You were asked about uh timeline. Yes. Okay. You turn to number 761, please. 76. 61 761, please. What page is that on? 248. I’m missing page 248. You don’t have a two page 48? No, I It stops at 212 and picks up at 253. Okay, stand with the witness. Yes. Can you remind us who asked you to put together a timeline? Peggy. Peggy. Mhm. O’Keefe. Yes. 2 days later, January 31st, 2022, and this is at 10:26 29 a.m. Are you texting Miss Roberts? I am. I have spent the A.M. trying to process that he is really gone and try to piece together all the events. Is that part of the process of the timeline? Yes. At some point uh on the 31st was something happening around Fairview Road that you learned? I believe there was uh police presence. Was there any presence from the media, the press? Oh, yes, there was. Was that causing any concern? Um, I believe I talked to Peggy and she was um And so on January 31st, 2022, we’re at number 864. Mhm. You’re receiving information. Do you know who this number is that’s calling you? That’s my sister. Which one? Nicole. And she’s texting you. News people came by and knocked on the door again. They’re all leaving now. Peggy and them left about 15 minutes ago. Yes. And then at 1:00 18 1:00 18 seconds on 1322, you text back. Did you answer the door? Correct. Was this part of your state of mind on the 31st? What was going on around the house? Yes. Just a few more. in trying to recount for people who asked you that morning and over the next couple days. some of what’s reflected in those text messages. Was that part of your state of mind? Yes. Was it in any way affecting the way you were remembering and thinking about what had happened? Objection. I’ll allow it. Yes. Your honor, subject to redactions, I would seek to introduce all of Miss McCabe’s text messages. So, we’ll deal with that. Wait, is there an objection? There is we’ll deal with that later. Okay. Thank you. I have no f Thank you. I have no further questions. Miss McCabe, couple of follow-up questions. You indicated on redirect examination that there were no sirens that you heard that morning with the approach of the first responders. Is that right? I don’t believe there was. But they did have their lights on. I saw a spotlight. Yes. And I do believe they had lights on. Yes. Flashing red and blue lights or blue lights or red lights, some combination thereof. Correct. Correct. That was cruisers. Police cruisers. Correct. Yes. There were, pardon me, there were fire SUVs. In other words, a captain of a fire department. Possibly. There were fire trucks and fire engines. You know the difference? No. Fire engine. Big one with a ladder on it. Yes. There were there was an ambulance, correct? Yes. And all of them had their emergency lights on. Most likely. Yes. All of them had their motors running. I’m not sure if they were all running. They could have been. Yes, certainly. There were You would agree that there was a cacophony of diesel engines and gasoline engines and internal combustion engines that were running right outside of 34 Fair View. Although no sirens, correct? I wouldn’t exactly say right outside of 34 Fair View. I’d say there were some right outside of 30 view 34 Fair View, but the first vehicle pulled up kind of right just on the right end and most of the vehicles with the lights on were to the left. So they were actually more in front of 32 Fair View, but there were vehicles there was Miss Robert’s vehicle and then I believe another vehicle pulled up. I think I remember from seeing the dash cam and Sarah’s cruiser, correct? Yes. and Melany’s cruiser just on the other side of Terry Roberts vehicle. Correct. Yes. I don’t believe lights were on. His lights were on. And there was a ambulance just to the left of to the left and behind Sarah’s vehicle. Correct. Yes. Which would have been in front of 32 Fair View. Lights on that as well. Yes. All facing in the direction of 34 Fair View. Correct. Facing but out front of 32. So, is there a reason that you’re so resistant to admit that there was a cacophony of sound and noise outside of 34 fairies? No. Okay. So, there was correct outside on the front line. Yes. Side line. And there was also some people yelling and screaming at a high pitch, right? Yes. Both Miss Reed, who was yelling and screaming. Correct. Correct. And Miss Roberts, who at least at some point told her to shut the fuck up. Correct. Correct. You were asked about the stop at 34 Fair View on the way to Sergeant Lang’s house on redirect examination by Mr. Brennan just now. Correct. I was. Yes. He showed you a couple of pages of your transcript from that question and answer. Correct. I believe he showed me a page. Yes. And you noted that this was from this was a question and answer from a hearing last year in this courtroom. Yes. And you admitted that you stopped, actually, let me rephrase that. You were confronted with the fact that you stopped at 34 Fair View on the way to Officer Len’s house, Sergeant Lank’s house, by me on cross-examination. Correct. Yes, you asked me. You also indicated that you have never refused to speak to the police, any law enforcement officer in this case. Correct. I’ve spoken when but asked to. Yes. But in point of fact, when you were approached by the two law enforcement agents who were not connected to Massachusetts State Police or to Canton PD, you suspended that interview and refused to answer further questions. Correct. I welcomed them in my house, sat with them, and then I stopped. And then I met with them a few times after, and I answered all their questions that they asked. I helped clear up some misconceptions that they had been told and as you know I know they’re no longer investigating. So I think I helped them well. And you’re obviously well aware that in that first interview you stopped the interview cold and refused to answer further questions. Correct. I said I’m going to stop and I’m going to seek some counsel. Yes. the text messages. You just read a series of text messages that Mr. Brennan actually read for you and you agreed with. Correct. Correct. or any of the text messages that you just read in the group chat that I showed you in cross- examination? I don’t believe so. Um, I don’t believe so. And that group chat included you, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, and Matt McCabe. Correct. Correct. And that was a private chat among the four of you. Is that right? That’s just a chat with them. Yes. You read some text messages to and from Carrie Roberts, correct? Yes. You had just met Carrie Roberts, isn’t that right? Yes. She’s not a McCabe. Is that right? Correct. She’s not an Albert, correct? Correct. You even read some text messages with your minor children. Correct. Just now. Yeah. I don’t believe anyone with my children. Mr. Brennan asked you about a couple of text messages, at least one text message with your children, didn’t he? No, he didn’t. Objection. Yeah, she can answer that question. Is that what happened? Did I misunderstand? No, I I honestly didn’t read anything from my children. I think one I said a friend, another time I didn’t know who it was, but I do know my children’s phone numbers and no, it was none of my kids. Obviously, the kids are not on that group chat. Uh that private group chat that we went over, correct? Oh, yes. Correct. They’re not. Well, let’s talk about those unidentified numbers. You said, “This is a number I don’t recognize.” And Mr. Brennan read to you a text to that person. Correct. Yes. Whoever that is, that person’s not a McCabe, correct? They’re not one. Uh, correct. And that person’s not an Albert. They could be. Again, I it’s it could have been Crystal, but Julie I’m I don’t one of the numbers I didn’t recognize cuz I don’t I have everybody in my phone with the name. So, I don’t recognize every number. And that person certainly was not in that group chat with you, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, Matt McCabe. Correct. Correct. And then there was a friend. You said this is a friend and I don’t need you to identify the friend, but whoever this unidentified friend is, that friend is not a Mabe and is not an Albert. Correct. Correct. And that friend was also not in that group chat that we went over in cross- examination. Is that right? Correct. These are all people outside of that group among whom you engaged in the chat that we saw. Correct. Correct. And that includes Carrie Roberts. She was not included in that group chat where you talked about the case and talked about what she was and wasn’t doing with law enforcement. Right. Correct. It was just my sister and my brother-in-law and husband. Yeah. Just a moment, your honor. Okay. No, that’s all I have. All right, Miss McCabe, you are all set. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. I’d like to play a couple of clips you’re Yeah. I’d ask you to just wait 10 seconds. I’m sorry. All right. You could play them now. Okay. May I have your seat? Yes. I’d like to play clip 12, please. There was a woman uh who was a mother to kids that were close to John’s kids who lived very close to the Alberts. In fact, when Jen was navigating John to the outreads when I was driving, she said, “It’s near Ashley’s house.” Ashley and John hooked up prior to John and I dating. There was a woman. Well, hold on. Hold on before you play it again. We’ve already played that one. We don’t need to play it again. Okay. 12 A, please. two things. Either he’s hurt himself and is incapacitated. Um he could be passed out on someone’s couch, which is just weird. We’re not on a campus. Everyone lives in their own home with children or he’s sleeping with someone. And there were multiple women in the neighborhood of Fairview that John had been with. Um, and one of them very recently before I started dating John. Clip 16, please. We’ll backtrack later. So, who are you with? I’m with Jen McCabe and Carrie Roberts and Carrie Roberts is Ford Explorer and I’m in the back leaning over the front two seats. Carrie’s driving and Jen’s in the passenger seat. And uh I I described this to everyone, so you’ve probably heard this before, but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie. It was just a lawn in a heap that wasn’t a bush or a hydrant or a dog. It was it was a a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road. I was expecting I’d find him. And the fear of what I was going to see is the worst feeling I’ve ever experienced. The anticipation of what what is awaiting me was as extreme a feeling. I wouldn’t say it was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realizing what happened to him. And finally, clip 17, please. All right. Hold that, please. Call next. You know, I’ll call Miss Hannah and his hand. probably mean stand in case. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give to the court and the jury in the matter not pending shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you out. Yes, I do. Good afternoon. All right, Mr. Lai, whenever you’re ready. Thank you, Ar. Good afternoon, ma’am. Good afternoon. Could you please introduce yourself to the jury and spell your last name for the court? Certainly. My name is Hannah Nolles. My last name is spelled K N O WL ES. And what is your occupation? I’m a forensic scientist at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab. And prior to working at the lab, where did you go to school? I have a bachelor of science from Simmons University in Boston and a bachelor I’m sorry, a masterers of science and forensic science from the George Washington University. And how long have you worked at the state police lab? uh since October of 2006. And in what capacity do you work there now? I’m currently a forensic scientist 4 in the toxicology unit. Now, when you joined the state police lab, uh what was your position and title that you were initially hired for? Was initially hired as a chemist one in the drug identification or narcotics unit. Um after about a year in that position um I was promoted to a um chemist 2 position. After about a year um there was a position available in the toxicology unit. So I applied for that available position. Um transferred to the tox unit in about August of 2007. Um and I’ve been in the toxicology unit ever since. And Miss Nolles, briefly, if you could describe sort of what is the difference between a chemist one and a chemist 2. Um, at the time the job series for folks that worked at the crime lab was the chemist series. Um, a chemist one was an entry level or traininee type position um where the individual was responsible for progressing through the training program and assisting with casework as they are authorized on different modules. Um, chemist 2 was a bench level analyst. Um, someone who had completed training um or had significant amount of authorizations and could work on casework um and worked independently um from that point forward. And similarly, what is uh sort of the difference between a chemist 2 and a chemist 3? Um the chemist 3 series that was in place um prior to 2014 um was a first level supervisory role. Um, it was somebody who oversaw the day-to-day operations and the work of forensic scientists one and two or chemists one and two. And what are your current duties and responsibilities at the state police lab? Um, in 2014, those chemist classifications that I was describing got changed to forensic scientists. Forensic scientists 1 2 3 four and five um is the series. Currently, I’m a forensic scientist 4. Um and so my role is overseeing training and validation for the toxicology unit. Is there a continuing educational component uh to your work at the lab? Yes, there is. And can you describe that for the jury, please? As part of our accreditation, um analysts are required to participate in continuing education at least once per year um as they continue to work in their role. Um continuing education can consist of um participating in workshops or webinars um attending conferences or meetings or documenting ongoing literature review of new journal articles as they’re published. What is proficiency testing? Proficiency testing um is something that we utilize in the laboratory um to assess um processes and competencies of an individual as well as the processes um that are in place for a particular unit or department or scope of testing. Um proficiency testing is also an accreditation requirement. Um, individuals are required by our internal processes to participate in proficiency testing at least once per year um as sort of an ongoing assessment. And what a proficiency test is um is materials that are purchased by um by the laboratory um from a third party vendor. Um those materials are analyzed as if they were casework. Um but there are expected results or known results for those samples. Um once the laboratory processes those samples, just like their casework, we submit the results um to the external vendor that we purchase the materials from, um the results are compared um to the expected results and we have to um have our results meet those expected results in order for the proficiency test to be considered successful. Now, over the course of your years at the lab, have you undergone proficiency testing? Yes, I have. And have you passed each of those respective proficiency tests that you’ve taken? To the best of my knowledge, yes. Now, is the State Police Lab accredited? Yes, it is. And by whom? The Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab is currently accredited by the American National Standards Institute, National Accreditation Board. And what does that accreditation process consist of? The accreditation process um consists of um on-site assessments as well as um remote or virtual assessments um to evaluate our policies and procedures um our personnel, our management um as well as our facilities um to ensure that we are meeting um established accreditation standards. The standards that we’re currently accredited to is an international standard um 17025 with additional requirements for forensic testing laboratories. Um, and so there are folks that come from that organization, ANAB, um, that come to evaluate all of those different aspects of our processes to ensure um, that we are meeting the the standards set out um, in their requirements. And the state police lab, in particular, the toxicology unit within that lab, is that accreditation up to date at this point? Yes, we’re currently accredited to that standard. Now, just in general terms, Miss Nolles, if you could uh explain to the jury what is forensic science. Forensic science um generally is the application of science to questions of law. And just again in sort of general terms, if you could explain to the jury what is toxicology? Toxicology generally is a study of um chemicals and other substances and how they impact um a living organism or or a person. Now asking a little more specifically what is forensic toxicology? Forensic toxicology is is generally looking at um drugs and alcohol um in the human body and how it affects um the individual and applying chemistry and other disciplines um to measure um the concentration or determine the presence or absence of relevant substances. Are there different types of alcohol? Yes, there are. Okay. And what are those types? Um, generally alcohols um are a family or a group of drugs or um chemicals that have a specific functional group or a specific structure. Um the types of alcohols that are analyzed in the laboratory that I work include methanol, ethanol, and isopropanol. And what are the differences between those different types? Um they all have similar but slightly different structures. Um methanol is a solvent. Um sometimes it’s called wood grain alcohol. Um isopropanol is rubbing alcohol. Um or um tupropanol. Um and that is typically used um as a disinfectant. Um and ethanol is the type of alcohol that um we typically are referring to when we talk about alcoholic beverages. It’s what’s um present in those types of of liquids. Now, Miss Nullles, through your training and experience, are you familiar with a term uh known as a central nervous system depressant? Yes, I am. And can you explain that term uh to the jury? Sure. A central nervous system depressant is a drug or a substance um that works to slow down the reactions of nerves in your body. Um so um it makes nerve cells slower or less likely to respond to stimulus. Now is alcohol a central nervous system depressant? Yes, it is. And how would that central nervous system depressant affect the human body? The effects depend on the concentration or the amount that’s present in the body. Um effects range um depending on that concentration um from slowing reaction time um reducing heart rate or respiration rate in an individual um that slower respiration rate can also result in drowsiness um or unconsciousness. Um slower reaction time and li more more limited muscle control can also result in outward appearances like a staggering gate or slurred speech. Um it can impair balance and motor coordination. Um because nerves are responding more slowly. Um it alcohol can also or ethanol specifically um can impact your brain’s ability to form new memories. it can impact your body’s ability to perceive um and apply critical thinking. Um again, all of those um effects that I just described um they can be present um depending on the concentration and the individual and how they’re responding um to that particular concentration of ethanol at any particular time. Now, how is work assigned within the state police lab specifically within the toxicology unit? Um, generally um supervisors will come up with a monthly schedule or rotation where the different types of work in the unit are divided amongst authorized analysts. Um, and then case work is assigned um according to that rotation. Um if an individual has um previously been assigned work for that case or has previously issued a report for that case, then um sometimes we go off rotation um and assign a case according to um that previous involvement um or previous report that was issued for the case. Now, at some point, were you assigned to perform some work on a lab case number 22-06576 pertaining to this defendant, Karen Reed? Yes, I was. And what is it that you were asked to do? I was asked to prepare a serum conversion report and a retrograde extrapolation report um relative to this case. Now, how many serum conversions have you conducted during your years at the lab? I’ve prepared over a hundred serum conversion reports um since I was authorized in 2008. And how many retrograde analyses have you conducted during your years at the lab? Um I would say approximately 15. Now starting with a serum conversion, um can you please explain to the jury what a serum conversion is and how it is that it’s conducted? Certainly. Um a serum conversion is a service that the laboratory offers. um when a blood e or a serum ethanol concentration has been determined and it would be helpful or relevant for us to approximate what a corresponding whole blood alcohol concentration would be. Um when we’re talking about blood alcohol concentrations or blood ethanol concentrations and serum ethanol concentrations, um serum ethanol concentrations are always higher than a blood alcohol concentration. If if you had a blood and a serum sample that were collected from the same person at the same time, um you would always expect the serum alcohol to be between 13 and 19% higher than the whole blood. So for that reason, that difference between the two um this service that we offer can assist to approximate what a corresponding whole blood ethanol concentration would be based on testing on a serum ethanol concentration. And did you have occasion to perform a serum conversion with respect to this defendant? Yes, I did. And what materials or documents did you receive in order to perform that analysis? Um, for the serum conversion, I referred to medical records that were provided with a request. Yeah. May I approach and retrieve uh what’s been previously marked as exhibit 37? Yes. May I approach the witness? Yes. I’m showing you a document. Do you recognize that document? May I approach it again? Yes. Yes. Sure. Mhm. Turn your attention to a previously tabbed portion of those records, the 52nd page of those records. Do you recognize that? Uh, yes. The flagged page is consistent with the portion of the medical records that um I had reviewed um in preparation um for doing the serum conversion calculations for this um report. And those medical records pertain to a Miss Karen Reed from good the Good Samaritan Medical Center. Is that correct? Yes, they do. Okay. And in those records on that 52nd page, what was reported as the defendant’s ethanol level? The results um are recorded as an alcohol result um with a value of 93 mg per deciliter. And pursuant to those records, at what time was that sample taken from the defendant at the Good Samaritan Medical Center? The collection time listed on the medical records is January 29th, 2022 at 9:08 a.m. Now, that recording in a measurement of milligrams per deciliter, is that typical for how you see ethanol measured by hospital labs? Yes. And did you conduct uh the serum conversion for this defendant’s reading uh consistently with how you do in every case that’s assigned to you? Yes. Now, please explain to the jury how you’re able to convert that serum level reading to a blood alcohol concentration. So, um the way that the calculation is performed um is kind of in two steps. So, the results are listed in milligs per deciliter which is com common in clinical testing. Um, and to convert it to the type of units that are typically used for blood alcohol concentrations, um, we just divide by a th00and to get that into the right units. Um, so 93 mg per deciliter converts to 0.093 g per. Um and then to perform the serum conversion or to get this serum ethanol concentration um into what we would estimate to be a blood alcohol concentration um we apply two um conversion factors um a low and a high conversion factor to account for the range that we see in the typical population. Um I’d mentioned earlier that serum is usually between 13 to 19% higher. So we divide that 0.093 093 by 1.13 and by 1.19 to get a low and a high um blood alcohol concentration for that range. And those conversion factors that you just mentioned, where do those come from? The conversion factors come from literature where they’ve performed experiments similar to how I described. They have individuals that have ingested ethanol. Um they collect samples from them and test their whole blood and test their serum um alcohol concentrations um and then um compare them and see what the ratio is between them. Um the current ratios that are used by the laboratory the 13 and 19% um those are also consistent with um consensus body documents or sort of industry standards that we utilize um and base our protocols upon. Now that 13 and 19%, how long have those conversion factors been in place? There was a consensus body document published in 2024. Um, and so we adjusted the serum conversion factors that had previously been in use um to those new published or those new recommendations um in September of uh 2024. Now, does the change in conversion factors recently adopted by your lab, does that benefit uh the patient or the person for whom you’re converting uh the ethanol to a blood alcohol concentration? Objection. I’ll allow it. Does it? Um yeah, the the previous factors were we used between 12 and 18%. Um, and so when you perform that conversion, it it typically ends up with a equivalent or lower blood alcohol concentration. Um, and so it could be interpreted as being favorable um to a defendant. Now, why are they presented in a range? Um, we don’t use just one conversion factor. Um because in the studies that we base our procedures on um it demonstrates that the general population does not have one consistent conversion factor or ratio between their whole blood and their serum alcohol concentrations. Um and so to ensure that the um conversion that we’re utilizing applies to most of the general population um we use sort of the extremes of what we see in that literature like a high and a low to make sure that our approximation falls um that the the true value would fall somewhere in between that low and that high value. And what did you calculate as a low and a high range for this defendant’s uh blood alcohol concentration from that alcohol reading from the Good Samaritan Medical Center? So the 93 mg per deciliter serum ethanol concentration would convert to between 0.078 um and 0.092% 092% or grams per percent. And again, Miss Nullles, that’s at the time that the blood is drawn at approximately 9:08 a.m. on January 29th. Is that correct? Yes. Now, turning your attention to retrograde extrapolation, can you explain to the jury what a retrograde extrapolation is? Sure. A retrograde extrapolation is another service that the laboratory offers um where it’s a calculation that we can perform when we have a alcohol concentration um that was measured at a particular time and it would be helpful or relevant to know what that person’s blood alcohol concentration was at some point prior to that sample having been collected. Um what we’re doing with this calculation is taking what we know um about how quickly the human body is capable of breaking down alcohol um and applying that rate of elimination to the time interval between when the sample was collected and tested and when um there might be a particular time of interest, an car accident or or some interaction um where that person’s blood alcohol concentration might be relevant. And how is that done? Um, similar to um the range of conversion factors that we were looking at with the serum conversion, um we know that the rate of elimination and alcohol in humans varies from person to person. Um and so based on studies um where they’re looking at rates of elimination in large groups of people um we know that alcohol can break down um at a rate of between 0.010 and 0.025% per hour. Um, and so we take the when we’re looking at a serum conversion and then being combined with a retrograde, um, we take the smaller of the serum conversion range, um, and we add that to the slowest elimination rate multiplied by, um, a time interval. And then we also take the larger of the serum conversion um values and then we add that to the fastest elimination rate u multiplied by the time interval. Um we use a smaller time interval for that sort of minimum calculation um to account for the fact um that we don’t want to overshoot um that estimate of blood alcohol concentration. if there was some unabsorbed alcohol. Um we don’t necessarily always know when we perform these calculations um the drinking history or like when the person had stopped drinking that day. Um and so we usually subtract 2 hours from the time interval when we’re doing that minimum calculation um to have a more conservative estimate. Um so we’re applying the the time interval, the rates of elimination and looking at what we have for um blood alcohol concentrations um all to be com um considered when we’re performing the calculation. Now what categories of information do you need in order to perform a retrograde analysis? We need to know um what the blood alcohol concentration was at the time uh that the sample was collected. We need to know the time the sample was collected and we need to know the incident time or the time of interest that we’re sort of calculating back to. Um there’s a couple of um requirements to be able to perform this calculation that we have to ensure. um we have to make sure that there’s at least been two hours in that time interval between the time of collection and the time um of interest that we’re looking at. Um we can’t calculate backwards with that very narrow window um because we can’t be sure that the person is entirely in the elimination phase that their body is reached a maximum blood alcohol concentration and they’re just breaking down alcohol at that point. Um, and we also know that this simple rate of elimination calculation can’t be accurately modeled once we get down below between 0.02 and 003. So, we have to make sure that the starting blood alcohol concentration um is at least an 03 or higher in order to be able to apply that math. Now, how is how is it that alcohol is metabolized within the body? Um generally um after someone stops drinking alcohol um their body um reaches a maximum blood alcohol concentration um and then um after that maximum is reached for most folks that’s between 30 and 90 minutes after they stop drinking. Um and then the body breaks the alcohol down over time in a very predictable linear fashion. um down until it gets down into about 0.02 and 0.03. Um the mechanism that the body uses to metabolize um some alcohol is excreted in urine. Some alcohol is um evaporated and removed from the body through your breath, but the vast majority is broken down with enzymes in your body that convert the ethanol structure into water and carbon dioxide. What are the phases of metabolism for alcohol in the body? Um so alcohol once it’s ingested moves through the body in a couple of different phases. Um one initially um the body is absorbing alcohol. Um then the alcohol is distributed throughout the body where it can have its effects. Um there’s the metabolism phase and then elimination. Um most drugs and alcohol all kind of follow that same pattern in these different phases. Um, and so I’d mentioned elimination phase earlier. Um, that’s after you’ve reached a maximum blood alcohol concentration. Um, and your body is no longer absorbing. It’s fully distributed in your body and then you’re just breaking it down and removing your body’s removing the alcohol or the ethanol from your system. Now, in a retrograde analysis, are you calculating for a single number or something else? So because we don’t know an individual’s particular rate of elimination, we use a maximum and a minimum um a fast and a slow elimination rate. And so um our results for this calculation are always expressed in a range um to ensure that um that individual’s actual blood alcohol concentration lies somewhere between the the range that that we provide. And can you please explain sort of that that range uh in the the size of it for the jewel? Um the the range that’s provided as part of these calculations. The size of the range depends on um the facts of the case and the amount of time that’s passed between the time of the incident and the time of the sample collection. um the more time um the more time that’s elapsed um there’s a greater difference between the faster and the slower rates of elimination, the 0.01 per hour and the 0.025 per hour. And what do those minimum and maximum blood alcohol concentration numbers signify? um they signify the the smallest and the the largest um concentration that could be reasonably expected based on the blood alcohol concentration and the rates of elimination that are being applied um in the calculation. Now, were you able to perform a retrograde analysis uh from this defendant’s uh alcohol blood testing from the Good Samaritan? Yes, I was. And uh similarly, did you perform that in conformity with how you performed uh prior retrograde extrapolation analyses in other cases? Yes, I did. And what time was utilized in your analysis as the time of of vehicle operation or or of incident? uh 12:45 a.m. um January 29th, 2022. And do you know where that time came from? Um I believe it was the time specified in the request from the district attorney’s office. And why is time of of operation or time of incident important? um because the time interval that we use in the calculation depends on um the starting and the ending point of that calculation. So the time of incident is important because that’s what we’re basing the math on. And what was the resulting minimum and maximum numbers that you calculated for the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration uh from her blood testing reading from the Good Samaritan Medical Center? that based on the 93 milligrams per deciliter um value that was obtained at Good Samaritan um that the blood alcohol concentration for that individual um at 12:45 a.m. um could be between 0.14 and 0.28 28 g per second. And so you calculated the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration uh to be between 0.14 and 28 at 12:45 a.m. on January 29th, 2022. Is that correct? Yes. May I approach this to retrieve your honor? Yes. Thank you, ma’am. I have no further questions. All right, Mr. Nady. Thank you. At this point, I’m only going to give you about 5 minutes. I was going to ask the court to cut me off so that Okay. Nobody’s late today. Thank you. Good afternoon, ma’am. Good afternoon. The Mass State Police Crime Lab uh you mentioned is an accredited forensic lab. Correct. That’s correct. That means that you’ve your lab has met specific internationally recognized standards for both quality and competence. Correct. There are aspects of um quality and analyst competence that are addressed in the accreditation standards. Yes. It also means that your lab has demonstrated a commitment to best practices and to ensuring the reliability and accuracy of its forensic work. Correct. Yes. And there are several requirements in order to become accredited. Right. Yes. One of the most important requirements is an independent external review of your lab’s quality management system. Correct. Yes. That’s definitely one important component of the accreditation process. That independent external review also evaluates your lab’s technical systems. Correct. Yes. And its procedures. Yes. And an external review means that experts from outside your lab come into your lab to review your work, right? Yes. The review includes the procedures and and the operating protocols. Um and there is some element of case file and specific work review within your lab. Correct. Uh and they make sure that you’re following established and proper protocols. Correct. Yes. Um, now as a forensic scientist 4, uh, is one of your responsibilities to ensure compliance with the lab’s administrative policies, quality assurance, and control requirements to make sure that you’re complying with accreditation standards. Yes. And you take pride in your lab’s accreditation status, correct? Yes. It’s an achievement that’s obtained by the hard work of a lot of folks at the lab working together. you make sure or you do your best to make sure that the lab is in compliance because you don’t want to lose that accreditation status. Correct. Correct. It’s important to um ensure confidence in our results to to maintain the quality and maintain the accreditation. Okay. Um in contrast to the accreditation standards for a forensic lab like yours, the standards for a hospital lab may be different. Correct. Correct. Typically accrediting bodies for clinical chemistry or hospital systems um are different accrediting bodies or different standards than forensic standards. Okay. And uh a forensic lab exists for a different purpose than a hospital lab. Is that right? Correct. They have different customers and sort of different scope or intention for the use of their results. Sure. A hospital lab tests and analyzes blood for its use in diagnosing medical illnesses and for medical purposes. Correct. That’s consistent with my understanding. Yes. Sure. And it’s not for meeting court admissibility standards like your lab, right? Not that I’m aware of. No. Um, your lab follows strict procedures that an expert uh from your lab can have confidence in the lab results when they come to testify in court like you’re doing today. Correct. Yes. Um, as you testify here today, you have no information that the lab at Good Samaritan Hospital is an accredited lab. Correct. Correct. Um and in in addition, good Samaritan Hospital is an external party in terms of its relationship to your lab, right? Yes. And for that reason, the type of calculations that we performed um based on medical records from Good Samaritan are outside of the scope of accreditation um in the crime laboratory system. Right. Uh it has no relationship to your crime lab, the Good Samaritan lab. Right. Correct. The same policies and procedures are applied when um our laboratory analyzes serum or if we needed to do a retrograde extrapolation on testing that was performed internally that’s covered by the scope of accreditation. But as you’re mentioning um the testing was not performed in my laboratory. I don’t have any direct knowledge or understanding of their QC procedures of their accreditation requirements or their testing procedures at all. You anticipated my next question. Uh so basically you cannot personally vouch for the ethanol testing that was performed at Good Samaritan. Correct. That’s accurate. The the reliability of the results that my calculations um were based on um my calculations are only as good as the numbers that I was provided. Um and like I said, the same math that I did here, I would do to my own internal standard or my own internal testing. anything that I performed testing on in the lab myself. Um, but the results that I started from, I I don’t have any direct knowledge on their accuracy or reliability. Right, Miss DNA, we can bring Miss Nolles back on Monday if you want. I don’t want to cut you short. That was the time frame. And I’m perfectly fine with that, your honor. Thank you. Okay. All right. And Mr. Lai, you’re done. Yes. Okay. No, thank you very much. You’re all set. and step down. Mr. T and Eddie, I think everybody appreciates. All right, jurors. That’s it for us for this week. Um, I’ll have to give you those cautions in a minute. I can tell you that it looks like next week we’re full days every day. Um, we don’t expect as long a gap in between as we’ve had to do. So, I think everybody should work really hard to make sure that doesn’t happen. uh precautions. Please do not discuss this case with anyone. Don’t do any independent research or investigation into this case. If you happen to see, hear, read anything about this case, please disregard it and let us know. Please be very careful with your social media use and we’ll see you on Monday. Have a good week and I will see council at Zbar. 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 our 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.

Karen Read is back on trial again after investigators say she drove drunk, hit her Boston cop boyfriend, John O’Keefe, then left him to die in the snow. O’Keefe was found dead outside the home of fellow Boston police officer Brian Albert, in Canton, Massachusetts. In July of 2024, a judge declared a mistrial in her first trial. Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a collision causing death.

If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://forthepeople.com/lclive

Subscribe to Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/LawAndCrimeNetwork

STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime’s Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2Iqo

Submit Tips to Law&Crime: tips@lawandcrime.com
For Advertising Inquiries, Please Contact: sales@lawandcrime.com
For Licensing Inquiries, Please Contact: licensing@lawandcrime.com

LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetwork
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrime
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrime

LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/

SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK YOUTUBE CHANNELS:
Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz8K1occVvDTYDfFo7N5EZw
Law&Crime Shorts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVXOqoOCYbi-iXChKAl6DTQ
Channel B: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXCLaaClAWQiTkl3pw9ZdLw
Channel C: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMV3pzWIhJGLYzoHyxBjjNw