Vinnie Politan Investigates: The Mistrial of Karen Read

Welcome to Vinnie Politan investigates. The whole point of a criminal trial is for the jury to render a verdict and tell the public what happened. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. Karen Reed was accused of murdering her police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe, but after a nine week trial, the jury didn't answer the ultimate question. And now what happened to Officer John O'Keefe is still a mystery. I've covered this case in depth on my weeknight show. Closing arguments, and what you're about to see are some of the most important moments from that program as I investigate the tragic death of Officer John O'Keefe. Karen Reed was framed and the world knows it. If there is someone on that jury that denies that irrefutable evidence, we got a problem. Hopefully it's going to be none. They're not guilty. Hopefully they had the weekend to think it over. She's got to be not guilty. I don't understand how anybody can't see the science behind it. So it doesn't make sense to me that it's taken this long. So, Mr. Lally, I'd like to hear from the Commonwealth first about doing thorough deliberations. I'm sorry I didn't hear the last part. I'd like to hear from the Commonwealth first about your view on whether the jury has conducted due and thorough deliberations. Your honour, while I understand that they have been at this for a while, I would submit that they have not. And I would ask the court not to make such a finding reasons for that, Your Honour. Um, this jury heard, I believe, about 29 days or so of testimony, um, 657 different exhibits marked as evidence. 74 different witnesses who testified before them. Um, and while I believe they've been out for some somewhere in the vicinity of 22 or 23 hours, what I would submit to the court based on all of that, as well as the complexity of the issues presented to them, um, they really haven't even had one hour of deliberation equivalent to one day of testimony to each of the days of testimony that they've heard. Our view is that it's time for Tui Rodriguez to honor. They've come back now twice, indicating essentially, that they're hopelessly deadlocked by the content of this latest message is that they have been over all the evidence. Previous message said they did an exhaustive review. This time. They said that we have they have fundamental disagreements about what the evidence means, and it's a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of lack of understanding. I think this has been an extraordinary jury. I've never seen a note like this, um, reporting to be at an impasse. Uh, I do find that there now, with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday saying that they were deadlocked, um is due in thorough deliberation. So I'm going to give Tui Rodriguez. So Mr. Foreman and members of the jury, I have an instruction for you. Our constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case, the principal method for deciding questions of fact is the verdict of a jury. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be selected. There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously, I will now ask you, Mr. Foreman, and members of the jury, to return to your deliberations with these instructions in mind, judge cannon, despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs. I'm not going to do that to you folks. Your service is complete. I'm declaring a mistrial in this case. To say this is I wouldn't. It's just really not the way anyone involved with this wanted this to end. I mean, I'm not wearing a red tie. There is no verdict. You cannot call this a verdict. It's the end of this particular trial. But it didn't end with a verdict. Which means the jury did not come out and tell us what happened. There was no ruling. We're back to, like, square one in this case. Now, obviously there may be people disappointed on both sides to different extents, but I think everyone can agree. This was a really tough day for John O'Keefe's mom. This is brutal. Now, let's not forget what her family has been through. She lost a daughter, then a son in law, and then those children were being raised by her other son, John. And now John is no longer alive. She's lost two children, a son in law, and has two grandchildren now who have lost basically three parents. Completely unfair. Completely tragic. And we know in every case when there is a family of the victim, they will never get closure. Their lives are never the same. They never forget the best they can get at the end of the day, is some sense of justice and be able to turn the page. And that did not happen for the O'Keefe family. Um, we look at the prosecutor and the prosecution. They just did not get it done. Didn't get it done. This is what trials are about. Criminal trials are about prosecutors coming into a courtroom, providing the evidence to convince a jury beyond any and all reasonable doubt. That's that's that's your job. That's your responsibility. Um, that's what you need to do. And the prosecutor, his investigators, witnesses, however you want to put the whole group together did not get it done. Now, as we sit here tonight. Um, same can be said about the jury. The jury didn't get it done right. They listened to everything. They saw the same evidence. All 12 of them saw the same exact trial in the box. Nobody was sitting behind any witnesses. They all saw the trial. They heard the witnesses. They saw the evidence. They listened to the judge instruct them on the law. And despite that, they could not reach consensus. And it happens. It happens from time to time. You've seen other cases on court TV that have ended this way. But we don't know. Tonight exactly. Is were they at all close? But what we what we heard from this jury is that each individual jury truly believed what they believed. There's nobody who's wishy washy. That's what I heard. That's what I heard from this jury through the notes they sent out to the court. So while the prosecutor didn't get it done and John O'Keefe's family is is in a terrible, terrible place, is this a win for Karen Reed? Is this a win? That's sort of an unanswered question. The general thinking in our in our world of justice is anytime my client doesn't get in criminal justice, defense attorneys will say, anytime my client doesn't get convicted. Yeah, it's a win. It's a win. But this case was different. We know they believed. They believed someone else was responsible. They believe she's factually innocent and they believe, um, that they were going to win this case. Coming up next, the community still doesn't know how this Boston police officer died. Mr.. John O'Keefe, that wasn't decided today. What made the Karen Reed trial such a huge national story was not only what was happening inside the courtroom, but also the intense scene outside of the courthouse. Here's more of our investigation. Court TV crime and justice correspondent Matt Johnson, who's joining us live from outside the courthouse in Dedham. Matt, great to see you. Long case long deliberations. We ended up where we ended up. So how exactly did this day go? It's been a very long day and a long trial. Nice to see you, Vinny. But, you know, we end the way that we started this three months ago. When I moved here three months ago, I really learned just how divided this community is. They still are tonight because the community still doesn't know how this Boston police officer died. Mr.. John O'Keefe, that wasn't decided today, but we did see an outpour of support for this defendant once again today. Dozens of supporters turned into a probably a couple hundred of people wearing pink holding those signs. Justice for John O'Keefe and Free Karen Reed. But this was the second day of the five days of deliberations that on the other end of the courthouse, probably 200ft away in the other direction, we saw anti Karen Reed protesters. Um, there's just one person right here in this video, but we've seen a handful of people here at the courthouse and they clashed. They were peaceful. They were exchanging a lot of words, but they clashed. And the day started with all of the parties seeing all of these people out in front of the courthouse, along with the state troopers that we see each and every day. Karen Reed walking in, looking very confident. This morning, she walked with her attorneys and her new security detail volunteers that made sure that she made it into court each and every day safely. She also changed her route. At one point during the deliberations, we also saw, of course, the O'Keefe family that made it to court every single day. Peggy O'Keefe never missing a day, Paul never missing a day. And they were just looked defeated today. Peggy O'Keefe, you showed her earlier. Broke down in tears when the judge, Judge Cannon, declared that this was going to be a mistrial and just the thought of what's next, and going through this again. Again, it was two weeks of jury selection, nine weeks of testimony, one week of deliberations, and she still doesn't get an answer. It's heartbreaking because, you know, all the tragedy this family has suffered and you're left with nothing else other than you want justice. And that is what's on your mind. Um, now after court, obviously the cameras are there, there are microphones, and the defense took an opportunity to make a statement. The defense sure did. The first thing that I noticed was they went up to the podium where all the microphones were situated. They went out there and just spoke briefly, but they thanked their supporters and they mentioned this. Take a listen. Folks, this is what it looks like when you bring false charges against an innocent person. The Commonwealth did their worst. They brought the weight of the state based on spurious charges based on compromised investigation and investigators and compromised witnesses. This is what it looks like. And guess what? They failed. They failed miserably. And they will continue to fail, no matter how long it takes. No matter how long they keep trying. We will not stop fighting. We have no quit. Alan, you're going to stay on. Go ahead. I just have two things to say, folks. Number one, I am in awe of the strength and courage of this remarkable client that I've had the privilege of representing since day one. And number two, I want to send a message to all of her supporters out there. Your support was invaluable. We are touched and we ask for your continued support. I'm not from Texas like my colleague here. I'm a Boston kid, but I'll repeat what he said, which is we ain't got no quit. Thank you guys. And that was pretty much the gist. It was pretty short, given the fact that these are attorneys that love to speak to the media after court every day, but they kind of clammed up during the deliberations. We also didn't hear from the defendant herself. She didn't address the crowd. She waved and they got into an SUV right away and drove off. I didn't see them loop around and do the victory lap that they normally do at the end of each day, and wave to their fans supporters out here, they just got in the SUV and left. And you know, she's not speaking because now she may face a round two with the Commonwealth. Vinnie. Yeah, I think that'll happen. I think it'll happen this year. Um, prosecutors issued a statement today. Matt. They certainly did. And you also have to keep in mind they didn't come out here on the courthouse steps because really, as you know, Vinnie, as a former prosecutor, they are strict under different rules than defense. Defense can be a little bit more vocal. They still have a case in front of them. They released this statement to court TV. Let's put it on your screen. It in part reads, um, first we would like to thank the O'Keefe family for their commitment and dedication to this long process. They maintained sight of the true core of this case to find justice for John O'Keefe. The Commonwealth intends to retry the case. Still to come, I did a focus group with my entire audience on the Karen Reed case, showing them different pieces of evidence. Who did they believe? Three quarters of them. One thought that Karen Reed was innocent and the other quarter thought that she was guilty. Judges instruct the jury on what the law is, but they don't really instruct the jury on the process of deliberating and reaching a verdict that's left into the hands of the jurors themselves. And in Karen Reid's case, it was clear from the jury's unusual notes that they knew exactly what they were doing. I want to bring in a special guest to talk about this jury. Human behavior expert. Jury consultant Susan Constantine. Susan, great to see you. I want to I want to read this note because I am still floored by the jury's note. This is actually note number four. They were all incredibly well written and thought out, but here it is. Judge cannon. Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division. This is the important part. I think the deep division is not due to lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs. What's your takeaway? First of all, from that note, it is really telling to me, and this is what I spoke about on your show before, when it comes to jury, is that it's difficult for some people to set aside their own personal core beliefs and values and perceptions and look at the case and then have a form, an objective opinion. In this particular case, what we saw was a mirror image of what happened outside a complete divide. And what we saw was strong hold beliefs they could not shake, could not move past, and both sides were opposing one another, and neither one of them on either side was going to budge one inch. And that's what we had here. Very strong, very opinionated, very different views, which this is a reason why we had a mistrial. So as we move forward to most likely a second trial as a jury consultant, what would you say to the defense and to the prosecution in this case? Because both sides obviously want to win and be done with this. We know the defense considers it a slight win when the jury doesn't convict, but I think these defense attorneys believe they should win the case. So what are your thoughts there? >> Well, first thing is, what can they live with? Not what they can't live without. So it may be that, you know, with Karen, I mean, uh, she's got to go back to court again and then have this case tried all over again. Doesn't mean today was a win. It didn't mean it was a win or lose. But if I were to advise either side, defense or prosecution, I'd revisit every single one of those expert witnesses that testified, and also limit in the amount of information that was given to that jury over that length of time. It was overkill. I also think that it was overcharged, so they really need to restrategize regroup and come up with a better strategy on both sides of the fence. So what you're saying would be less is more Sometimes I'm saying less is more. And let me ask you one other question, because we talk about the public reaction versus the, uh, jury reaction being similar. We don't know the split or the numbers. Would the would the split in that jury tell you anything about the next trial? Sure it would. And not only that, what we're looking at demographics, age, could be education, ethnicity, all of those demographic factors, one piece of it, two. And then look at because what could it be more female driven, more male driven. We don't know. But also let's say it was 10 to 2. And let's look at the demographic profile of those individuals. That will give you insight. Then the next time you go around, I don't think they're going to have time to do any sort of focus group or mock trials, because it's so far out there. I think they would evaluate this information and then decide what is what is a better mix of jurors that if they're going to be looking for in a new trial or who are going to be their dangerous jurors on both sides and get them off. And so that's the thing is, I think they had a little bit better, uh, strategy. And I also think that Karen Reed's attorney were a little bit too, Uh, optimistic. Let's just put it that way to thinking that they were going to come in and do a slam dunk, and they found out they were wrong. Every trial is a search for the truth. But in this case, that search ended without an answer. The jurors all heard the same testimony and saw the same evidence, but in the end they saw and heard it differently. While it's disappointing for everyone, it's not the end. In fact, it's just the beginning. As Karen Reid remains cloaked in her presumption of innocence, and the prosecution must try to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 different citizens. I'm Vinnie Politan, thanks for joining the investigation, and I'll see you weeknights at 8 p.m. eastern on closing arguments. Welcome to Vinnie Politan Investigates. When a police officer is murdered, there's usually an overwhelming reaction from the community, and when someone is charged with that murder, the community often wants that alleged killer off the streets, but in the case of accused cop killer Karen Reed, the reaction has been much different, much more divided. I've covered this case in depth on my weeknight show, closing arguments, and what you're about to see are some of the most important moments from that program as I investigate the tragic death of Officer John O'Keefe. Judge cannon Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs. I'm not going to do that to you folks. Your service is complete. I'm declaring a mistrial in this case. I'll be in to see you privately in a few minutes. So thank you so much for your service. Deep divide and people on both sides. And in the note they're using the plural. So this isn't it doesn't appear from the note at least that this is one holdout, that there was an actual divide in there with multiple people on both sides. So the judges declared a mistrial. That means you go back to square one. Of course, the case can be retried, but let's get some reaction from our insiders are back with us tonight. Karen Reed, supporter, creator of the justice for Officer John O'Keefe and Karen Reed Facebook page. Nick Rocco and the YouTuber behind Yellow Cottage Tales, Kevin Lenihan with us. Thank you both for being here. Um, this is a big day. I think, as the way it played out may not have been super surprising at the end, uh, based on what happened Friday today. And then finally, um, this afternoon. Um, let me start here. Uh, Nick, I'll begin with you. Um, your your feelings tonight, how you're feeling. And any word from the Karen Reed camp on what the emotional state of everyone is? Yeah, well, like like what you said earlier, um, I don't think it's a necessarily a win for Karen Reed because ultimately the end result that the defense team and I think all of her supporters was looking for was a not guilty verdict. And it seems by that note that it was maybe split as far as the way the jury was looking at this case. One of the jury members did speak out. I believe it was to another news station. Um, juror number three had said that. So she was an alternate juror. She wasn't with the final 12, but based off her handling of this case being through the whole thing, she did state that, um, she would have found Karen Reed not guilty. So I think it's going to be very hard on a retrial to find a 12 zero jury to convict her. And I don't think Karen Reed will ever see jail time if they do retry her. Kevin, your reaction to how things concluded today, and is there any word on the emotional state of everyone? We saw the images of them, but any word from the John O'Keefe camp? I have I don't have any word from the John O'Keefe camp. I mean, there's a lot of reasons why this isn't surprising. We know. I mean, I can tell you for a fact that the juror that was dismissed last week was was telling people publicly in public places that she was an avowed she was a turtle rider and she was going to acquit. So she never should have been on the jury. This juror number three that became an alternate was wearing a pink dress to work when she became an alternate. So, you know, this is the problem with this case. You've whipped up this hysteria in social media. And so you get these kind of people that are going to sneak through onto the jury. And that's not to in any way. Obviously, most of the jurors took their job very seriously. But I do think the state needs to do a better job. You had hear bulletproof evidence, and that got lost in the way that they focused on things that maybe could be open to different interpretation. For example, even the I hit him, I hit him. You could always argue. You don't know for sure. What's she asking the question? Did people get their stories together later in the at the fire station? There's always that room for questioning there. But when it came to the bulletproof data that connected the vehicle data with John's phone data, there was no way to challenge that. And I just want to finish with this. The defense did not challenge it. They didn't challenge the fact that Karen went backwards 62ft at 24, almost 25 miles an hour. They didn't challenge that. The GPS showed that John didn't go in the house. So this stuff ties together in a way that really makes this an airtight case. But it was lost because of the presentation. Nick, any response to that or do you want me to go on to the next thing? I always want to give you an opportunity. No, I think, um, you know, no matter what me and Kevin say, right? These are our opinions at this point in the trial, seeing how this unfolded. I do believe towards the end of the deliberation, I was I was thinking it was going to be more of a mistrial. But, God, go on. And you see the divide in the jury room. You see the divide on this program. So it's a very similar way. We're looking at the same evidence, um, and people are looking at it differently and people are focusing on different parts of the evidence. And that may be in a retrial where things are different. Each side has to play on their on their strengths and keep the jury focused in those areas. >> Coming up next, if there's reasonable doubt based on the state not entirely proving the accident, that's one thing. But accusing innocent people, for which there's no evidence of being complicit in a murder and a murder cover up. This has to stop. Three. Three. Three. Three. Three. Three. Folks, this is what it looks like when you bring false charges against an innocent person. The Commonwealth did their worst. They brought the weight of the state based on spurious charges, based on compromised investigation and investigators and compromised witnesses. This is what it looks like. Guess what? They failed. They failed miserably and they will continue to fail. These circus animals went down there to harass the O'Keefe family. Have some respect. A man has died. He has lost his life. And those children lost three adults that took care of them. I believe that she's been framed. I know what that blue line is all about. And I love that blue line. And I'm very, very proud of them. And I can't believe that they took their friend and put him in the snow, because this isn't normal to even be out here in the first place. We have a lot every day. I stream it every day, but it really bothered me that they won't leave the hockey field. That's why we're here, because. We are winning the majority. When you stand for the right thing, even if you stand well, even if you stand for the O'Keefe family, we stand for John O'Keefe. It's an abomination. What's happening? They're treating this like it's a recreational. Like. It's like it's all fun. I'm not from Texas. Like my colleague here. Uh, I'm a Boston kid, but I'll repeat what he said, which is we ain't got no quit. After the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the brother of the victim, John O'Keefe, had a message for accused killer Karen Read on the way out of the courtroom. Here's more of our investigation. Let me show you something. We're looking at supporters right now, but I want to show you, um, something that has been firing up on social media immediately after this mistrial, which is this moment. Um, we saw it there for a second. It's the moment where John O'Keefe's brother is leaving the courtroom, and it appears as he turns there that he says something And Karen Reed seems to be acknowledging something, and she turns back, uh, and it appeared to me that something was said there. Nick. You're in the room. Did you did you see or hear anything at that moment? Yeah. Uh, I definitely think the emotions got the best of everybody in that moment. Um, you know, the statement of we're not done with you yet was stated as, you know, they left the courtroom. Um, I'm not sure what to think of it at this point. Um, but, uh, and kind of at a loss of words because I get emotions are high in that and that, you know, point in the trial and, um, was it something that should be said? I don't think so. But, you know, we'll see what happens down the road. Um, like I said before, I don't believe that they'll find a jury to convict her even if they do retry. So, you know, the other part of this is that the family with a reaction of of both heartbreak and then some emotions afterwards, as Janaki's brother is leaving, there could be a civil suit in all of this. They could file a wrongful death lawsuit. We've seen that in other cases, sometimes with a conviction and sometimes without a conviction. So we'll keep our eyes open for that. >> Um, Kevin, what did you think of of the overall reaction to this? And what I mean is from the community, right. Because, you know, from people inside and outside, do you think things are at a point where, hey, everyone's can agree to disagree at a certain point, or do you think emotions will get worse after all of this? I think this is this case has really come down to, in a lot of ways, a battle between those that really want to process evidence logically and those that are really more focused on emotional beliefs, and then just using bits and pieces of evidence to try to support that emotional belief. I'm not trying to dismiss those concerns. I understand people maybe have feelings of mistrust about the police, or maybe frustrations in their own life, and they've kind of put their hopes on this person as a hero. But all I really ask is for people to look very closely at the evidence, at the logic, at the at the timelines, at the impossibility of planting evidence. In this case, if there's reasonable doubt based on the state not entirely proving the accident, that's one thing. But accusing innocent people, for which there's no evidence of being complicit in a murder and a murder cover up, this has to stop. Still to come, everything in this case needs to be presented differently. Uh, from the Google searches on both sides of the defense and the prosecution to all the Apple health data, I think if, um, things were a little bit clearer, I think the jury may not have such a hard time coming to a verdict. Sometimes crucial pieces of evidence can be somewhat ambiguous or unclear, things that can be interpreted two completely opposite ways. During Karen Reed's trial, there was a lot of evidence just like that. Steps are known to have an accuracy of around 98%, uh, on the actual steps being occurring. So if the Apple health data returns, for instance, uh, steps of 20 steps within a certain time period, 98% of the time Apple is going to be right. That's what studies have shown. The Apple health data such a big part of this case, but another one of those pieces of evidence that seemingly can contradict itself or is somewhat ambiguous. After you listen to all the evidence in the case, let's take a listen to Trooper Nicholas Guarino talking about the Apple health data as well. So at 12, 11 and nine seconds in the morning to 1221 and five seconds on the 29th, it shows that he's taking 170 steps, going 99.6m or 326ft at sorry, at 1221, in 10s to 1224 in 20 two seconds. It shows 80 steps and 87.74m, or 287ft at 1221 14 seconds, uh, to 1224 and 37 seconds uh, it stated ascending, descending three floors. And then at 1231, 56 to 12 3216 in the morning, 36 steps, 25.4 6m or 85ft. Now, sir, with respect to what's listed as steps, does that indicate from based on your training experience and familiarity with this sort of health data, what, if anything, does that tell you as to whether or not the person with the phone is physically taking steps? That's not the case. What is the case? Uh, like I said, the phone has internal measures. Uh, so, uh, the phone has internal measures in it. Like I said, it's basically a pedometer. So the movements of the phone, the distance traveled, it's going to register as steps. You don't have to physically be walking and moving the phone for it to register movement. Okay, so this is Apple Health data. From my perspective, it should be pretty clean cut by the end of all this testimony. A little confusing in this case. Nick, why weren't you confused by the Apple health data? Like the jury split on this? They all weren't buying what the defense was selling. Well, I think being in it so long and being familiar with what the information is that the defense has and that the Commonwealth has, um, seeing this trial unfold, we were seeing a lot of this in the in the pretrial motions as well. So as far as the jury not believing it, it's hard to say. Right. Because we don't know. We don't know the numbers of the jury who was towards guilty, who was towards not guilty. But I think everything in this case needs to be presented differently. Uh, from the Google searches on both sides, the defense and the prosecution to all the Apple health data. I think if, um, things were a little bit clearer, I think the jury may not have such a hard time coming to a verdict. Kevin, was this an issue that seemed very clear to you from the beginning? Because to me, it's not. And I think it should be. And I think that's what an expectation of the jury and I understand two sides are going to fight inside the courtroom, but still at the end it should be clear. And the Murdoch case, it was clear to me. Right. Yeah. It's a problem. It wasn't presented in a way that makes it clear. Now. There are some things to also look at here. You want to focus sometimes on what the jury I'm sorry, what the defense team doesn't ask as well as what they ask. So you notice the defense team did not question the GPS data that showed that there was only a four second period, that in which the margin of error expanded because the signal had weakened. In order to allow that John could have gone in the house. So even if you were to accept for some strange reason that the clock was off on it or something like this. The idea is that John went somehow. It was a 70 foot distance from there to the front door. So he flew into the house, got attacked by a dog, got beat up, went up and down stairs, and then flew back to where he was found. All that in four seconds. So it just doesn't make sense. And the defense never challenged that. Just like they didn't challenge the vehicle data. So I mean, you know, this is this is the thing they but you're right, they didn't make this clear. And this should have been focused on in a way so that it wasn't cloudy for the jury. Now, something that prosecutors didn't have in this case that often they do is a very clear opinion from the medical examiner. Take a listen. Cause of death was blunt impact, injuries of head and hypothermia. And with reference to manner of death, what, if anything, did you list on Mr. O'Keefe's death certificate in relation to manner? I listed could not be determined. Now, from your extent of your examination of Mr. O'Keefe's body, um, what, if anything, that you did, you observe that would indicate any sort of altercation or a fight or anything like that, that Mr. O'Keefe was. I didn't see any signs, major signs of what I would call a significant altercation. What do you agree that John O'Keefe's injuries are, or lack thereof, are inconsistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24mph? I would say it's. Likely and unlikely at the same time, depending on the position of the body and the vehicle in question. Okay, that tells me nothing. That tells me absolutely nothing. But you know, she's being honest based on her opinion. Nick. You know, there are a lot of people that I saw on social media that were very troubled by the lack of injuries, um, that they expected to see. Do you feel that the that the jury got a clear enough picture for what injuries they should see and shouldn't see? I felt like, um, at least medically, it wasn't necessarily there one way or the other. Well, seeing the injuries, where was what was shown in court. Right. You have you have the marks on the arm and you have, um, the cut in the back of the head and some cuts over the eyes and nose. So as far as seeing the rest of the body and things like that, I don't think that was necessary because these were the only damages. So, um, you would think that common sense being struck by a vehicle, you're going to have some type of bruising on your, you know, lower body, uh, but you just don't see it in this situation. And I think that's why a medical examiner isn't going to really say yes, this is 100% being struck by a car because it's not what they see, most likely. I mean, usually you see more damages on the body. And in this situation you have the medical examiner and then four of the defense experts saying that, you know, these these injuries don't really line up to being struck by a vehicle. And that's one thing that I had wished the jury had looked into more. Um, I think with all the information, though, after 70 something witnesses, you know, they were all taking great notes, but at some point you just get lost in it and it's like you confuse, what did that person say this or did that one say it? So it was a lot. It was a long two months, long two months. Um, along the same lines of these injuries. Let's talk about the arm. Here's Trooper Joe Paul and then Doctor Marie Russell. So the taillight in this case was shattered when it was struck. John O'Keefe's arm, based on what I saw for his injuries, was from the upper part of his arm down. Based on your review to review of all of the data that you've talked about, all of the information that you were given and reviewed. What is your opinion or conclusion about how these injuries were sustained? I believe that these injuries were sustained by an animal. Possibly a large dog because of the pattern of the injuries. All right. Kevin Lenihan, clarity on the injuries, lack of injuries, etc. and really that arm, which loomed very large in this case. What are your thoughts? Well, I mean, I don't understand how a dog could bite somebody without leaving injuries on the bottom part of the arm. A dog has a large mouth, and I don't understand how a dog could do this without leaning, leaving canine evidence on the clothing. So I think this particular witness was kind of suspect. Both everything about the way she emerged just coming out of the Alan Jackson area of his office in the middle of the trial. The whole thing was kind of suspect. But I think common sense, if a dog bites you, it puts its arm around it, puts its mouth around your arm, and you're going to get injuries on the top and on the bottom of your arm. When you have evidence that can point in two directions and you have 12 people in a room, chances are some of them may not agree with each other about what the evidence proves. And it looks like that's exactly what happened in Karen Reed's trial, which once again proves the most important part of a criminal trial is choosing the 12 who will ultimately decide. I'm Vinnie Politan, thanks for joining the investigation, and I'll see you weeknights at 8 p.m. eastern on closing arguments.