0:00

With the $5 meal deal at McDonald's,

0:03

you pick a McDouble or a McChicken,

0:05

then get a small fry, a small

0:07

drink, and a four-piece McNuggets. That's

0:09

a lot of McDonald's for not a lot

0:11

of money. Price and participation may vary for

0:13

a limited time only. Hello,

0:15

I'm Ravi Achadri. I invite you to

0:18

join me every Tuesday for new episodes

0:20

of Nighty Night, bedtime stories to keep

0:22

you awake now on Podcast One. This

0:24

new incarnation of Nighty Night is an

0:26

anthology of stories that bring to life

0:29

classic horror stories some you're definitely familiar

0:31

with and others you'll be hearing for

0:33

the first time. Join me

0:35

as I tuck you into bed with

0:37

stories that will leave you sleepless all

0:39

night long. Get new episodes of Nighty

0:41

Night every Tuesday wherever you get your

0:43

podcasts. This

0:46

episode of The Prosecutors is brought to you by

0:49

Huggy's Little Movers. Get your baby's

0:51

butt into Huggy's Little Movers. We got you,

0:53

baby. This

0:56

episode is brought to you by Progressive

0:58

Insurance. Hey, guys. Whether you

1:00

love true crime or comedies, celebrity

1:02

interviews, news, or even motivational speakers,

1:04

you call the shots on what's

1:07

in your podcast queue, right? And

1:09

guess what? Now you can call the

1:11

shots on your auto insurance too. Enter

1:14

the name your price tool from Progressive. The

1:16

name your price tool puts you in charge

1:18

of your auto insurance by working just the

1:21

way it sounds. You tell Progressive

1:23

how much you want to pay for car insurance. And

1:25

they'll show you a variety of coverages that

1:28

fit within your budget, giving you

1:30

options. Now that's something you'll want

1:32

to press play on. It's easy to

1:34

start a quote and you'll be able to choose

1:36

the best option for you. Fast.

1:39

It's just one of the many ways you

1:41

can save with Progressive Insurance. Quote

1:43

today at progressive.com to try the

1:45

name your price tool for yourself

1:48

and join the over 28 million

1:50

drivers who trust Progressive. Casualty

1:53

insurance company and affiliates pricing coverage match

1:55

limited by state law. I'm

2:00

Brett. And

2:05

I'm Alice. And we are

2:07

the Prosecutors. Today

2:19

on the Prosecutors, we continue our look

2:22

at the Karen Reed trial. Hello

2:57

everybody and welcome to this episode

3:00

of the Prosecutors. I'm Brett and

3:02

I'm joined as always by my

3:04

Blythe co-host, Alice. Brett,

3:07

thanks for that. I don't know what to say

3:09

because I don't know what that means. I always

3:12

feel like Blythe should mean something bad. It

3:14

sounds like a word that's bad, but it

3:16

actually means like carefree and free-spirited.

3:20

You taught me a word of the day because

3:22

I just only know that as a name, but

3:24

it's more like Blythe. That was a very 90s.

3:26

Honestly, maybe that's how you pronounce it. Blythe. I

3:28

don't know. I don't

3:30

know. I

3:32

don't think I've ever used that word in a

3:34

sentence until this very moment. So

3:37

glad that our entire lives have pointed

3:39

us to this direction to become lawyers,

3:41

to become podcasters, so that you could

3:43

use that word in a sentence. I'm

3:45

sure that's what everyone here is here

3:48

to listen about, not about the care and

3:50

retrial that seems to go on forever and

3:52

ever. Now, Brett, I

3:55

don't think people quite understand when we

3:57

say that basically every moment we're not

3:59

working our part. full-time jobs, trying to

4:01

be present parents. I am preparing for

4:04

recordings. We are listening to testimony in

4:06

this trial. It is all-consuming. This really

4:08

is kind of reminiscent of our Murdoch

4:11

trial days where there's just not enough

4:13

hours in a day. But I do

4:16

love doing this

4:18

because there are so many talking heads

4:20

out there who give their take on

4:22

what's happening in the trial. And every

4:24

time they say something, I'm like, that's

4:26

not what happened at all. And

4:29

so they always say, be the change you wish to

4:31

see in the world. So you're going to watch it

4:33

yourself. And I got to say this, an advantage we

4:35

have over people who've watched this live and even the

4:37

jury is being able to

4:39

just churn through witness after witness. I

4:42

think it actually helps you to remember

4:44

and understand the evidence better because when

4:46

you hear someone and they

4:48

don't even finish their direct and then it's

4:50

the weekend and they come back, it's so

4:53

hard to maintain continuity if you're the jury.

4:55

And that's a really good point because we

4:57

always say, as you put on your witnesses,

4:59

you're thinking about the storytelling. And

5:01

when we get to kind of fly through

5:04

these witnesses because we're watching it retroactively, not

5:06

in real time, there really is a story,

5:08

right? Usually, for example, husband and wife are

5:11

right after each other. So you get to

5:13

see where they confirm the other story, even

5:16

though they're not in the same room as each other.

5:18

So they don't know that they are saying the same

5:20

things or confirming each other's stories. But

5:22

it is very interesting to hear the same set

5:24

of events from multiple angles. And you get to

5:26

do that when you don't have to wait a

5:28

weekend, for example. So if you have the opportunity

5:31

to kind of watch it in that way, I

5:33

think it does help you absorb

5:35

better what the story is

5:37

and what the testimony is and how

5:39

it builds into one larger picture. And

5:42

I'll say this, the defense has benefited

5:44

from the direct several

5:46

witnesses ending on a

5:49

day and that day ending, and then their cross

5:51

doesn't start until the next day. And that is

5:53

a huge advantage because then

5:55

you can basically spend hours

5:57

strategizing on exactly how you're going to attend.

5:59

a witness that's a big advantage and you've

6:02

seen that on several witnesses where they've had

6:04

that. So we're to Michael Link who is

6:06

another officer in this case. We're going to

6:08

talk about him. But before we do, we

6:11

left you last time saying that a challenge

6:14

to see the fewest number

6:16

of conspirators you could come up with to

6:18

make this work. Someone has already emailed us

6:20

three. It's a stretch

6:22

to say they had a pretty good argument for

6:24

how their three would work, but given

6:27

all the testimony, I don't actually think it works.

6:29

But I have decided we are going to take

6:32

up the same challenge,

6:35

Alice. We are going to do the

6:37

Canton conspiracy countdown. We're going to talk

6:39

about of the witnesses as we go

6:41

through them. Are they part of

6:43

the conspiracy? Are they conspiracy

6:46

adjacent? Or are they just... That's

6:48

how we're going to look at it. And I'm going

6:50

to try and be as

6:53

charitable as possible to

6:55

the conspiracy. So not make the conspiracy

6:57

too big with the caveat that

6:59

the defense present pretty much everybody as part of

7:01

the conspiracy, but we're going to try and keep

7:03

it minimal. So on conspirators of

7:05

the people we've gone through so far, this is

7:08

my list, Alice, and I'll be interested to

7:10

hear what you think. So far,

7:12

the only person I have as

7:14

a conspirator is Katie

7:16

McLaughlin. You may remember Katie McLaughlin.

7:18

She is a firefighter who knows

7:20

some of the Alberts and

7:23

the defense has posited that she

7:25

is lying about Karen Reed saying,

7:28

I hit him in reference to John.

7:30

And that's sort of her part of

7:32

the conspiracy is that. So she is

7:34

a... In my estimation, conspiracy adjacent. And

7:36

this is where I feel like I'm

7:38

being charitable to the conspiracy. I

7:41

have officer Sarah Timothy Nettle,

7:43

Anthony Flomati, and

7:45

Greg Woodberry as conspiracy adjacent. Now

7:48

all of those people say that

7:50

they heard Karen say, I hit

7:53

him or some variation on that.

7:55

I think officer Sheriff says, it's like, I hit him.

7:57

This is all my fault or something. So. So,

8:00

my charitable interpretation of this is

8:02

that they have been influenced by

8:05

Katie McLaughlin and maybe the coverage

8:07

since the accident. So, they now

8:10

remember hearing her say that, but

8:12

they're not like part of the conspiracy.

8:15

They're not intentionally misleading as part of the

8:17

theory. So, that's my charitable interpretation. And then

8:20

I have the incompetence, Paul Gallagher and Sean

8:22

Goode, who are the two officers we talked

8:24

about last time with the snowblower and that

8:26

sort of thing. So, so far, I don't

8:29

have any of the officers as part of

8:31

the conspiracy. I've got Katie

8:33

McLaughlin. What do you think, Alice? Is

8:35

that too narrow? I think that's very

8:37

charitable. I think based on the testimony

8:40

and the cross-examination that's happening, again, we're

8:42

saying this from the point of view that

8:45

I don't think there's a conspiracy so far,

8:47

but the way the cross-examination is going, they

8:49

are pushing all of your conspiracy adjacent folks

8:51

into the have to be conspirators camp, which

8:54

I think is an even higher bar for

8:56

the defense to have to build. So, I

8:58

think you're being very charitable to them, but

9:01

I don't think they're being that easy on

9:03

themselves. So, they're not building a case that

9:05

is easy to prove. And

9:07

I would even go, obviously, we know

9:10

that they think the incompetence, it's hard. They argue

9:12

them as incompetence, but they also argue them as

9:14

part of the conspiracy, but I'll be charitable on

9:16

that. I will say, we'll give them incompetence because

9:18

it has to be kind of an either-or, even

9:21

though they do not argue it as an either-or, but

9:23

I will be charitable and say, fine, it's an either-or.

9:25

I'm incompetent, even though I think the snowblower

9:28

is actually pretty smart. Yeah. And

9:30

I think you're right. I think the way the

9:32

defense is presenting it, probably a lot

9:34

of these people are conspirators, which I think is not

9:36

a great thing. But like I said, I'm trying to

9:39

be charitable. I want to narrow it down as much

9:41

as possible. And we'll sort of, maybe we can do

9:43

that as we go, differentiating between what the defense is

9:45

saying and what we're saying. And then something to keep

9:47

in mind as you think of this, why is Katie

9:49

McLaughlin, for example, if she's the one conspirator so far,

9:52

why? What does she have against Karen

9:54

Reid? What does she have against

9:57

John O'Keefe? Because that to me is the

9:59

question. that is very, very

10:01

large and looming that is

10:04

not as easy to put into a category

10:06

as the categories we're drawing

10:08

here. Well, she did go to

10:10

a baby shower, one of the Alberts, and she

10:12

was on her 30-person track

10:15

team. So I know I've

10:18

been to a lot of baby showers and every single person

10:20

there and every single person I went to high school with,

10:22

I would definitely frame someone for murder

10:25

to help them. And

10:27

let us not forget, she is

10:29

Facebook friends with one of the

10:32

Alberts. Did anybody else go to

10:34

their Facebook friend list and defriend a bunch of

10:36

people? You better. After that? You

10:39

better. And how just the

10:41

stars aligned that she just so

10:43

happened to be on duty that

10:45

morning right when the Alberts... Sometimes

10:48

it's better to be lucky than good.

10:50

So she's my first conspirator. Now

10:53

Michael Link. So let's go to Michael Link. So

10:56

Michael Link is one of the

10:59

officers who was going to be

11:02

an important part of this case. He is

11:04

someone who interviewed a lot of witnesses. And

11:06

as you'll see happen sometimes, this sort of

11:08

starts outside the presence of the jury because

11:10

we're trying to establish this friendship. The

11:12

judge at the beginning of this case made

11:15

sort of a split the baby ruling

11:17

on third party liability. We

11:19

talked about this on legal briefs, some other dude did

11:21

it defense. That is a defense in this

11:23

case. The defense

11:25

wanted to make sort of a full-throated argument about

11:28

this. The judge made

11:30

this sort of half and half

11:32

decision, which doesn't seem to have actually

11:34

limited the defense much. But you

11:36

see sort of this kind of thing where we have

11:38

to establish outside the presence of the

11:41

jury, are they really friends? And the judge decides whether

11:43

or not that can come in front of the jury.

11:45

And it almost always does. So we talk about officer

11:47

Link, his relationship with the Alberts. He

11:49

has been friends since childhood with

11:52

Chris Albert, who is Brian Albert's

11:54

brother. And Link was asked

11:56

about a fight in 2002 with

11:58

a man who had also been in altercation with

12:00

Chris Albert. Laenck said the

12:02

fight was unrelated to Albert. The

12:04

defense is obviously trying to say this was just

12:07

another example of Laenck involving

12:09

himself in some sort of dispute with

12:11

the Alberts and coming in on the

12:13

side of the Alberts. He did it in 2002. He

12:16

did it again in 2022 when it was

12:18

time to cover up a murder or at

12:20

least he was biased. And so

12:22

he maybe didn't look as hard as he should have at

12:25

the Alberts. The judge is going to allow the defense

12:27

to get into this event from 22

12:29

years ago to some limited extent. So

12:31

then they bring the jury in and

12:34

we start to talk to this officer.

12:36

So with the jury present, Laenck testifies

12:38

about the day of the event. He

12:40

speaks about how the state

12:42

police became involved and how once

12:44

it became clear that John would

12:46

not, he immediately brought them into

12:48

the case because that's a requirement.

12:51

The state police investigate all suspicious

12:53

deaths. At this point, the

12:55

state police said they could not respond at

12:57

that time. The defense objected as to hearsay

12:59

when Laenck was asked why. Presumably

13:02

that might come out later. I'm going to

13:04

go with it was because of

13:06

the blizzard state police were probably a little

13:08

bit underwater at that point. Laenck

13:11

spoke to Jennifer McCabe and

13:14

he told her that he would need to speak to

13:16

the homeowners, Brian Albert and his

13:18

wife. She said, you know, they're probably

13:20

sleeping, but later Laenck saw there

13:22

was a light on side and so he was

13:24

able to enter the house. At that point he

13:26

did speak to Brian and Nicole Albert. Laenck

13:29

said that he knew Brian is

13:31

the eldest of the Albert brothers. He had

13:33

grown up in Canton and coached youth sports

13:36

and he was good friends with Chris Albert. He

13:39

said he was civil with Brian, but he didn't really

13:41

consider him a friend. He said Albert

13:43

was disheveled and he appeared to have just woken

13:45

up. The house seemed in order. No

13:47

one tried to prevent him from entering or appeared

13:50

to be acting unusually or seem to

13:52

be nervous or anything like that.

13:54

In fact, Laenck was inside the house

13:56

a total of three times that day.

13:59

Laenck said that he only... saw the front foyer

14:01

area of the house. He did not go

14:03

into the basement or really anywhere

14:05

else in the house. The basement becomes important

14:07

in this case. The defense

14:09

has posited to that location

14:12

is where John O'Keefe was

14:14

actually killed, beaten up,

14:16

attacked. We'll go with attacked. He was attacked

14:18

in the basement and from the basement taken

14:20

into the front yard. So the basement is

14:22

going to come up again and again. He

14:25

agreed with Officer Gallagher that

14:27

there was no probable cause to search the house. The

14:30

defense would dig into this and would

14:32

ask, like, if he locked down or

14:34

secured the premises or removed people from

14:37

the house. Now how he would do

14:39

this without probable cause is not entirely

14:41

clear. He was also asked about

14:43

taking people's cell phones, which once again, this

14:45

is not East Germany. I'm not

14:47

really sure how you would do that. And let's just talk about probable

14:49

cause for a second because I feel like this

14:52

is confusing to people for obvious reasons, but

14:55

just think of it. Think of it this way. You

14:57

guys have probably all followed the Delphi case. In

14:59

the Delphi case, there was a search warrant. There

15:01

have been a lot of what are called Frank's

15:04

motions that were filed saying

15:06

that the police left out critical information

15:08

that they should have included that would

15:10

actually defeat probable cause in that case

15:12

and that they shaded the truth to

15:14

make probable cause stronger. This

15:16

is a really interesting moment, I thought,

15:19

because defense attorneys are really good at

15:21

talking about the constitution and their role

15:23

in defending the constitution. We all know

15:25

defense attorneys are absolutely critical for the

15:27

justice system to work. Every

15:29

person is entitled to a defense attorney. They

15:32

play a fundamental role in the constitutional system.

15:34

They've sort of expanded that in recent years.

15:36

I feel like their PR has gotten better

15:38

and now they're like not only the defender

15:41

of the justice system and ensuring that defendants

15:43

get counsel, they also protect your rights, your

15:45

fourth amendment rights and your fifth amendment rights.

15:47

You're standing in the breach against

15:50

police overreach. Then you

15:52

see a case like this and you remember

15:54

defense attorneys, their job and their oath and

15:57

their duty is to their client. violating

16:00

your rights, helps their client,

16:03

that is what they're going to argue for.

16:05

So they're arguing for searching someone's house based

16:07

really on nothing more than there was

16:10

a dead guy outside who knew the people in the

16:12

house. And just imagine how the writing

16:14

of this affidavit would go down. Imagine

16:16

you got Officer Link and you got the DA and they're talking

16:18

about this and the DA is like, okay, what do we got?

16:20

What do we got? What are our arguments? And I'm like, well,

16:22

you know, he knew him. Okay, that's good. That's

16:25

good. He'd seen him earlier that night. Oh, that's

16:27

good too. That's great. He was found in front

16:29

of the yard. Okay. Yeah.

16:32

Okay. Okay. We're

16:35

getting there. What else do we have? Well, his girlfriend says she

16:37

hit him. And let me ask you, do we have any witnesses

16:39

who say they saw him in the house maybe? Because maybe that

16:41

brings them into the house. Okay. That's

16:43

not good. Well, I mean, there's 11 of

16:45

them. Do you have anyone that any indication that

16:48

all 11 are lying or any one of

16:50

them are lying? Absolutely. Because why wouldn't

16:52

they be lying? They don't want to be involved in

16:54

this. Okay. But I can't put that in

16:56

affidavit because the judge is going to ask me to sign my name to it

16:58

and swear to where I got that

17:00

information. So can you point me to

17:02

anything that indicates you suspect based on

17:05

your experience why these people would be

17:07

lying? Well, most of them

17:09

are family members and family members lie for

17:11

each other. Now there were a couple of

17:13

random girls who just knew one of the

17:15

people who were also there, but friends lie

17:18

for each other too. Do you have any

17:20

indication that these family members ever lied for

17:22

each other to cover anything up? Sure.

17:26

We could dig something up. Okay. Let's

17:28

go to John O'Keefe. No. Related

17:30

to Karen Reid. Okay. guess

17:34

we have to put in there. Did anyone see

17:36

them fight? Any people

17:38

in the house fight with John O'Keefe?

17:41

No, but two of them were

17:43

like play fighting in a bar

17:46

earlier that night. So they

17:49

could have been planning their attack.

17:51

Okay. So you say play fighting.

17:53

There was no aggression and no police were

17:55

called about an altercation earlier in the night.

17:58

Well, no, but... Okay. I'm

18:01

just gonna like put on my judge hat

18:03

for a second. You said something that really

18:05

is not sitting right with me right now

18:07

You said something about his girlfriend saying she

18:10

hit him. Does that girlfriend live in that house? She

18:12

does not in fact. She was never in the

18:15

house. She says she was never she was never

18:17

in the house Did she park her car in the

18:19

house? She parked a car out front that

18:22

she count for something, right? Briefly,

18:24

okay, but she never went in the house. Do you

18:26

have any? Indication that we're

18:29

talking about you know veracity of her story anything to

18:31

back up that maybe she did hit him Well,

18:34

our taillight was broken and we

18:37

did find taillight pieces in the

18:39

snow Underneath the victim. Okay, was

18:41

it was there a trail of taillights from the

18:43

house front door or basement door all the

18:45

way to the body? Maybe

18:47

he was dragged there. No, they

18:49

were all Where we

18:51

found it. Okay, they're all there was

18:53

a glass though There was

18:55

a glass a broken cocktail glass.

18:57

Okay, the glass belonged in the house the glass belonged in

19:00

the house There's a whole set in the house so we

19:02

can match it to other glasses in the house No,

19:04

no, it came from the bar that they were

19:07

at before but still that's something right?

19:09

I mean I There's

19:13

not even there's nothing here I don't know what to

19:15

tell you except, you know what we can't In

19:18

their yard and what about what

19:20

about the neighbor's house? What about all the

19:22

other cars that were there? What about what

19:24

about the bar? I mean he was sure

19:27

at least Surely we can

19:29

seize their cell phones download it and look

19:31

at everything they've ever done based on this,

19:33

right? Okay So

19:36

yeah, I'm sure we can get a warrant

19:38

for that like everything they've ever done all

19:40

of their dick pics for sure Right. Absolutely.

19:42

Yeah all of those things every time that

19:44

they you know Texted lovers and all those

19:46

things because he was not a lover

19:48

to any of them, right? No I

19:52

don't so, you know, we

19:54

do have we do have messages

19:56

from her telling him to

19:59

go effing himself. So there's

20:01

that. Okay. I see

20:03

where we're going and I'm feeling really

20:06

good about this. We totally have probable

20:08

cause for her phone and her car.

20:10

Can we do that? I

20:12

mean, I guess if that's the best alternative we have,

20:14

if that's the only search warrant I can get, then

20:16

I guess I'll take it. But anyway, so

20:19

that is the kind of conversation that you would

20:21

have had. Okay. I know that was a little

20:23

bit in jest, but we literally have these conversations

20:25

with our investigators when we are drafting these warrants.

20:28

And these are questions like we

20:30

were really trying to get to yes. And

20:32

we have to put on our judge

20:34

hat because we will get smeared across the

20:36

courtroom by the judge if we were to

20:39

bring everything we had there. And that

20:41

was it. To try and get a warrant

20:43

to violate someone's constitutional rights to their

20:45

phones, to what the Supreme Court has called

20:47

essentially an extension of yourself. Right? This is

20:50

not just a phone. It's an extension

20:52

of who you are, your very essence as

20:54

a human being and your

20:56

house, your castle, one of the

20:59

preeminent examples of what you have

21:01

privacy within. And here

21:03

we are saying the reason there

21:05

is a bar is to protect

21:08

your constitutional rights. And when you

21:10

break down those barriers willy-nilly, there

21:12

is no longer protection in any

21:14

circumstance. That's why this is important

21:16

because justice is supposed to be

21:19

blind. And we have to

21:21

apply those same standards here because I've heard

21:23

so much in the media, they should have

21:25

just gotten a search warrant. Not

21:27

that easy. And thank goodness not

21:30

that easy. That's the entire point of

21:32

these protections. Let me give

21:34

you, well, number one, I think

21:37

the one argument that you should disregard

21:39

out of hand is, well, maybe they could

21:41

have found a judge who would sign it.

21:44

That is not the point. And

21:46

even if there was a judge who would sign it,

21:48

number one, that judge is not doing their job. And

21:50

number two, the prosecutors, as we have said before, our

21:53

job, we actually do take an oath to

21:55

protect and defend the constitution. And our job

21:57

is to think about these things. a

22:00

gatekeeper. So even if you could find a judge to

22:02

do it, you should not submit that. And

22:04

I will tell you, the judges that I

22:06

work with would never sign off on a

22:08

search warrant in this case based on what

22:10

we have. Both the sculptory evidence, the various

22:12

things about Karen Reed and the fact that

22:14

there's not a ton of connection between the

22:16

house and him. I mean, the only connection

22:18

really is he knew the people, he'd been

22:20

with them earlier and he was found on

22:22

the front yard. That is not a bad

22:24

place to start at all. And if you

22:26

had a couple more things, maybe you could

22:28

get there, but you couldn't get there with

22:30

what you have. And the cell phones

22:33

are even harder because then

22:35

you got to show some connection between the cell phone, which

22:37

maybe you could do. I mean, you would get their phone

22:40

records and see that they call each other and text each

22:42

other, which they did. And so maybe you would use that,

22:44

but you just need more. And let

22:46

me say this, if these same defense attorneys

22:48

represented any of the people in that house,

22:50

they would be screaming to high heaven that

22:53

this is a fundamental violation of their

22:55

rights. If you were able, it's

22:57

just not something that you can imagine a defense

23:00

attorney letting slide. Let's play this out a little

23:02

bit. Officer Lenk actually did the right thing by

23:04

saying, I should go talk to people in the

23:06

house because of all the things we laid out

23:09

at the very beginning. Great place to start for

23:11

your investigation. He actually does. He even walks in,

23:13

he talks to them. When you're doing

23:15

these kind of knock and talks,

23:17

you use your observation skills. If he in

23:19

fact saw that the house was an utter

23:22

disarray, that the two occupants of the house

23:24

seem like they've been up all night, maybe

23:26

with gloves on and Clorox seems

23:28

a little bit strange to be cleaning your house when it's

23:30

still dark outside, when you just had a party and

23:33

you look pretty disheveled, looks like you never went to

23:35

sleep. In fact, you're still wearing the clothes from the

23:37

night before. You still have the stamp from the bar,

23:39

whatever. And all of a sudden you

23:41

see shards of glass on the corner that seem

23:43

to match some of the glass you saw outside.

23:45

And there seems to be a trail of blood

23:48

and they continue to kind of put themselves in

23:50

front of you so you can't see within their

23:52

foyer. Okay, we're getting somewhere. These are all things

23:54

that police are observing when they do these types

23:56

of investigations so that they can put these things

23:59

within their... You don't have

24:01

to have, I saw the murder

24:03

weapon. That's why we get to search there. You

24:05

can say things from, based on my experience in

24:08

investigating X number of years

24:10

of homicides or suspicious deaths, I

24:13

have noted that the way he talked, the

24:15

way they tried to block my entrance, even

24:17

though they had all the constitutional right to

24:19

block me, but the way they were acting

24:21

indicated they were trying to prevent

24:23

me from seeing certain things. And I also

24:25

noticed broken glass that seemed to match what

24:27

the deceased had near him at the time.

24:30

Those sorts of things, you're beginning to build your

24:32

case for a probable cause. And

24:35

that's why sometimes we see these warrants come

24:37

not the same day, maybe not even the

24:39

next day, but maybe several days or even

24:41

weeks after an investigation has been going on

24:43

because the police are collecting evidence so they

24:46

have evidence that amounts to probable cause to

24:48

bring to the court. I remember when I

24:51

first got access to the internet.

24:56

It was terrifying. I

24:58

would go to these chat roulette rooms not

25:00

knowing what I was doing as a teenager.

25:03

And I didn't grow up with internet the way

25:05

today's kids have. I can only imagine

25:07

what it's like for them. Who

25:10

knows what they're seeing on social media, what

25:12

music or videos they're looking up. It's unnerving

25:14

to think of everything they can do on

25:17

their phones now. Statistics show

25:19

that 45% of teens say social

25:21

media makes them feel sad or

25:23

depressed, which is why I want

25:25

to tell you about this lifesaver for both parents

25:27

and children, GAB. GAB

25:30

is the leader in safe smartphones

25:32

and watches for kids, teens and

25:34

tweens. With no social media apps,

25:36

no internet browser and

25:38

GPS tracking, GAB devices were built from

25:41

the ground up specifically for kids and

25:43

teens and are the way to keep

25:45

your kids safely connected. And GAB

25:48

phones and watches are still tech

25:50

kids actually want. There's unlimited talk

25:52

and text, a clean music streaming

25:55

app and over 100 third

25:57

party apps that can be installed at parents'

25:59

discretion. Other safe device

26:02

options or parental controls let you

26:04

know what's already been accessed. But

26:07

gabs phones and watches are built with

26:09

smart filtration that proactively blocks harmful content

26:11

before it reaches your kid. I love

26:13

this product. You guys know we cover

26:15

stories about the dangers of social media,

26:17

catfishing, entrapment. It is terrifying out there

26:19

but with something like gab I know

26:21

I can rest easy at night while

26:24

still being able to stay connected with

26:26

my kids. That's why I think gab

26:28

is a game changer and I can't

26:30

recommend enough that you give them a

26:32

try. This is the absolute best time

26:34

to check them out because right now

26:36

gab is offering $25 off any device

26:38

to new customers

26:41

with no contract required. That's

26:43

$25 off any gab smartphone

26:45

or smartwatch. Just go to

26:48

gab.com slash

26:50

prosecutors. That's where

26:52

you'll get the

26:54

best deal. That's

26:57

gab, gabb.com/prosecutors. gab.com/prosecutors.

27:03

This episode of The Prosecutors is brought to

27:05

you by Huggies Little Movers. Huggies knows that

27:08

babies come in all shapes and sizes and

27:10

their tushies do too. Huggies

27:12

Little Movers with its curved and

27:14

stretchy fit. Moms know that there's

27:16

nothing worse than an ill-fitting diaper

27:18

especially for your active babies. I

27:21

love Huggies because I can rely on

27:23

them to keep my baby covered while

27:25

she moves around. You guys have heard

27:27

about my sweet little baby. She just

27:29

turned one deep into mobility. I am

27:32

so excited about Huggies Little Movers

27:34

because she can roll around, jump

27:36

around, climb which is everything she's

27:38

doing and I know that she

27:40

is covered and so am I

27:42

in the cleanup. And

27:45

we all want the very best for

27:47

our babies and that's Huggies. Huggies Little

27:49

Movers are curved so babies feel comfy

27:51

no matter how much they're moving around

27:53

and they're moving around a lot. They

27:56

also offer up to 12-hour protection against

27:58

leaks which is a game-changer. And get

28:00

your baby's butt into Huggie's Little Movers. We

28:03

got you baby. And

28:07

let me just say one more thing about the separating the

28:09

people, because this comes up a lot. Why

28:11

are people separated? Obviously, you as an officer can

28:13

ask to interview people separately. You can say, hey,

28:15

do you mind if I interview you over

28:18

here? But what you can't do is just decide,

28:20

you know what? I think these 11 people might

28:22

be involved in a crime. So I'm basically going

28:24

to arrest them and move them

28:26

somewhere and place them somewhere until I decide

28:29

what to do with them. An example of

28:31

this, you guys all remember the

28:33

Robert Juan case. Those three

28:35

guys lived in the apartment where

28:37

Robert Juan was found stabbed to

28:39

death. When they went to

28:41

talk to the police, they would at

28:43

times take breaks and go outside

28:46

and sit in a car together and

28:48

do who knows what. And the police couldn't

28:50

stop them from doing that because they weren't

28:52

under arrest. They were there voluntarily to talk

28:55

to them. The

28:57

defense is always trying to present this

28:59

as the fact that they didn't quarantine

29:01

every member of the Albert family until

29:03

they had gotten statements from them or

29:05

whatnot as a failure of the police. There's

29:08

nothing they can do to prevent those

29:10

people in that house from being in

29:12

the house together at that time, unless

29:14

there is a situation where they have

29:16

probable cause to do things like arrest

29:19

people in search houses and that sort

29:21

of thing. And we will

29:23

move on from this, but a good judge,

29:25

if they got the affidavit written with the

29:27

facts that were just in this case, would

29:29

go through that colloquy we just went through.

29:32

That wasn't completely in jest. You would have

29:35

to actually answer those questions with the judge,

29:37

except I, as the questioner, was

29:39

much nicer than any judge would ever

29:41

be to you. I have had search

29:43

warrants denied by judges. It is not

29:46

a good feeling. Times when

29:48

I thought I had well beyond probable cause and

29:50

the judge raked me over the coals. Over

29:52

the evidence that was presented. So

29:55

that just tell you, don't even come over

29:57

here. Don't you like I've looked at this.

30:00

You're nowhere near close. I don't even want to

30:02

see you. Go back to the drawing board. I

30:04

mean, that happens. Absolutely. Okay.

30:06

So still on Link. So Link

30:08

also talked about working with Kevin

30:11

Albert, who was another Albert and

30:14

he was a Canton detective. And

30:16

Link, he's not trying to live under

30:18

a rock here and he's not trying to minimize the

30:20

fact that, yeah, there could be

30:23

perceived bias between the Albert family and

30:25

Canton police because of kind of the

30:27

close ties and the family members who

30:29

are part of the Canton police department.

30:32

And Link says, because of this perceived

30:34

bias, and no perceived bias doesn't mean

30:36

there's actual bias. It's just saying from

30:38

the outside, could you see someone question

30:41

whether there is bias? And when

30:43

there's perceived bias, oftentimes we take

30:45

measures to mitigate or to

30:48

recuse even if there's not any evidence

30:50

of actual bias. So he's like, yeah,

30:52

because there's perceived bias here, this is

30:55

actually what led to Canton being recused

30:57

from this investigation. Link argued that it

30:59

was not a problem that he and

31:02

other officers did not separate the witnesses

31:04

at the McCabe house. Kind of like

31:06

Brett was saying earlier, the Robert Wong

31:08

questioning is a great corollary example. No

31:11

one was under arrest. There was no

31:13

reason to be able to hold them

31:15

under arrest and to control them, right?

31:18

There's no reason this police officer can

31:20

say, you can't talk to your wife

31:22

or husband or brother at

31:24

that moment in time. If they found out

31:26

more information, they could have, but at the

31:29

time, no, and they didn't

31:31

find out anything that warranted them to

31:33

be under arrest or to be separated

31:35

either. And Link further testified he did

31:37

interview people, but he did not record

31:39

conversations, which is not unusual

31:42

at all. Link says this, other police

31:44

officers say this, we've said this not

31:46

particularly in this case, but in any

31:48

case, not every single

31:50

interview is recorded.

31:53

Actually, the vast majority of your interviews

31:55

are not going to be recorded because

31:57

you don't always have a recording on

31:59

you because you have your notes. taking

32:01

because oftentimes you're interviewing a broad swath

32:03

of people who you will

32:05

re-interview if they are going to be trial

32:08

witnesses later because at the investigative stage, you're

32:10

trying to understand the state of the situation

32:12

to understand where your next leads are going

32:14

to be. So the fact

32:16

that every interview isn't recorded is actually

32:18

incredibly commonplace, not just for Canton, but

32:20

for any law enforcement. And he goes

32:22

on to testify that he interviewed Brian

32:24

and Nicole out together. Remember he knocked

32:26

on their door and they seemed to

32:29

have just woken up and they were

32:31

together because they live in the house

32:33

together. And they

32:35

also were interviewed with Jennifer

32:37

McCabe. After he spoke to the

32:39

people in the home, he consulted with

32:41

Gallagher about how to handle the

32:43

scene in the midst of this

32:45

blizzard that's still going on. We've

32:47

already heard testimony how unusual

32:50

this scene is, right? They had put

32:52

crime scene tape up, but it was

32:54

completely worthless because of this wind that

32:56

was ripping through. And

32:58

so to kind of try

33:00

and mark off this crime

33:02

scene space, they actually surrounded

33:04

where the tape was with

33:06

marked patrol cars, which you

33:09

see them do this on the highway, for example. If

33:11

there are so many cars going by

33:14

and there's a big accident, police cars

33:16

will actually block off parts of the

33:18

road in place of police tape because

33:20

it's more effective. And that's what they

33:22

did here. So they took measures when

33:24

the environment around them wasn't allowing the

33:26

usual course of business for marking off

33:28

a crime scene location. Now

33:30

remember last time we talked about the use

33:32

of the leaf blower to try and clear

33:35

layers of snow to look for evidence? Well,

33:37

Laenck actually was one of the officers who

33:39

watched this leaf blower being used. And

33:41

he was the one who recovered the

33:44

broken cocktail glass that was found underneath

33:46

it. Laenck was given the

33:48

evidence box with the glass in it,

33:50

which he removed for the jury. So

33:53

you bring evidence to trial and

33:55

you seal it. You do all the

33:57

markings to make sure there's the correction.

34:00

of custody and he's actually

34:02

the witness who is the one who takes

34:04

out this broken cocktail glass to show to

34:06

the jury so they have the actual glass

34:08

that the police found in front of them.

34:11

And the cocktail glass appeared to be probably

34:13

something like a lowball glass or a whiskey

34:15

tumbler. Let me just say this, I kept

34:17

hearing cocktail glass and imagine sort of a

34:19

martini glass is sort of what I was

34:22

thinking of, but it's not. It's

34:24

a cocktail glass. Like you would have

34:26

a Negroni or a Manhattan or if

34:28

you're a bourbon drinker, you might have

34:30

a bourbon and a lowball

34:32

glass. I'll say this, there one thing

34:34

is interesting about the glass. There's going

34:36

to be video we see later where

34:39

John has said to have this glass in

34:41

his hand and we'll talk about that when

34:43

we get to it. But it's

34:46

interesting that he had that glass

34:48

because all the testimony that we're going to see whenever

34:50

we get to it is he was

34:52

drinking beer. So if he switched to that, which

34:55

is usually a stronger

34:57

drink definitely than a beer, I guess maybe

34:59

it was the last thing he ordered

35:02

at the bar. Now Karen was

35:05

drinking highballs. So she

35:07

was drinking vodka tonic. They usually

35:10

come in taller glasses. It's a

35:12

bigger drink. It's sort of lower

35:14

alcohol content altogether because it's

35:17

the same amount of alcohol, but it's mixed

35:19

with eight ounces of tonic or whatever. She

35:21

had a lot of them, but

35:23

that's what she was drinking. So this glass

35:26

would probably not be one of her glasses.

35:28

It would be either something

35:30

that John had and brought with him

35:33

from the bar. Or if you think, if

35:35

you believe in the conspiracy, then actually

35:38

it did come from the home somehow.

35:40

And maybe this is part of the

35:42

frame job. They dropped the glass there

35:45

to make it seem like he never made it

35:47

inside. He still had a drink from the bar.

35:49

Now that is a pretty sophisticated part of the

35:51

frame. I mean, usually people forget

35:54

the little things in frame jobs. I mean,

35:56

that is a cherry on top

35:59

of the... Frame pie if they

36:01

did that because that was really that was

36:03

thinking through and they found that glass very

36:06

early on So even before for

36:08

instance your state troopers would have been involved

36:10

that we're gonna hear a lot about they'd

36:12

already found this glass So explaining the glass

36:14

away actually is a pretty important part of

36:16

the conspiracy theory And I don't know if

36:18

the defense would say link is a conspirator

36:20

I'm gonna get down to our list and

36:23

that's why he was there when this glass

36:25

was found Well, there's more especially if you're

36:28

thinking about whether link has to be part

36:30

of this conspiracy So what we've talked about

36:32

so far what he's testified to is The

36:35

morning that John O'Keeffe is found

36:37

in his investigation, you know immediately

36:39

following it Basically fast forward about

36:42

a week on February 4th Link

36:44

got a call from Gallagher that chief

36:47

Berkowitz had discovered more evidence in

36:49

the interim Remember we had been

36:51

in the middle of a nor'easter a blizzard

36:53

But since then the temperature had risen to

36:55

the mid 40s those of you who

36:57

know Science that

37:00

means above freezing meaning snow has the

37:02

opportunity to melt and in fact it

37:04

did and it had even rained So

37:06

because the snow had melted some it

37:09

revealed more stuff Which is why several

37:11

days later they found more evidence on

37:14

the ground Berkowitz spotted a piece

37:16

of red Glass and link

37:18

was sent to photograph it and where

37:20

it sat before they collected it as

37:22

evidence They then secured this item in

37:24

an evidence bag and the piece of red plastic

37:27

or glass had been lying in the snow So

37:29

when they took a picture of it, you can

37:31

see it looks very visible It's hard hard to

37:33

miss at that point could have been hard to

37:35

miss during a blizzard because there was snow piled

37:37

on top of it But once some snow had

37:39

melted you can kind of see how it becomes

37:41

exposed So the defense zeroed

37:43

in on a comment that link made

37:45

when he called into dispatch Saying

37:48

that he was responding to 34

37:50

Fairview and that there was

37:52

a Boston police officer down and that

37:54

he wasn't sure if there Was a

37:57

fight or whatever and it's that fight

37:59

or whatever that they completed completely seize

38:01

on and they ask Link in like

38:04

20 different ways. So you knew it was

38:06

a violent event. You knew there was a

38:08

fight What made you decide it was a

38:11

fight and Link doesn't give in to any

38:13

of those characterizations He says no he

38:15

just knew that they had

38:17

an officer down and that the victim

38:20

John had trauma to the head and He

38:23

didn't know what was going on. It could

38:25

have been he said multiple things things and

38:28

he described it to indicate basically

38:30

it wasn't like a heart

38:32

attack or something like that and he

38:35

Basically, he didn't try to minimize what he said

38:37

But he also didn't put too much import because

38:39

it was at the very beginning before they'd done

38:41

any investigation and he's calling something in you try

38:44

to give as much information as possible so that

38:46

the appropriate help can be sent and Help

38:49

was set he was taken to the

38:51

hospital. They tried to revive him. Ultimately

38:53

they failed Now Link was the

38:55

one who recovered the blood in those solo cups

38:57

and then he put them in a refrigerator Possibly

39:00

in the evidence bag possibly not I think this

39:02

was a little bit murky and

39:05

the defense makes a big deal about them

39:07

being in a stop and shop Bag

39:09

stop and shop is a grocery store.

39:12

So basically like a paper grocery bag

39:14

I used to shop at stop and shop. Oh, that's

39:17

a tough. No me too. I love stopping shows

39:19

Those are some good days. I still have my reward

39:22

card on my keychain. Actually, I had that for

39:24

forever It's like 10 years old. I haven't used it

39:26

in 15 years. I still have it. I don't know why

39:28

there's no stopping shops near me So

39:30

again, there's a lot of improving on the

39:32

spot in this unusual circumstance, right? This

39:35

is the thing is this is exactly the same

39:37

kind of paper bag the police use for evidence

39:39

bags Like they're usually these paper

39:41

bags. They just fold them over. So I'm

39:44

not sure they make hay of it

39:46

The defense certainly makes hay of it. But

39:48

link is just doing the best he

39:50

can again in those circumstances Yeah

39:52

and I mean the defense is gonna make a lot

39:54

of hay out of the sloppy investigation the fact that

39:56

they just weren't ready for This and it looks like

39:58

they weren't and so they had to, they

40:01

improvised. But as I've said

40:03

before, I would think that

40:05

to the extent you compromised any

40:08

evidence, you introduce foreign DNA, anything

40:11

like that, it actually would help

40:13

Karen because it would introduce

40:15

other individuals and other possibilities into

40:17

the case, but obviously the

40:19

defense is going for the incompetence angle.

40:22

Alice, what do you think? Okay. One

40:24

thing about the drink, I know a lot of you

40:26

are wondering about the glass. Could it have come from

40:28

inside? It was consistent with the glass from the bar.

40:30

There's also going to be testimony later on about the

40:33

little black cocktail straw

40:35

that they are going to find as well, which would

40:37

go along with the glass. More

40:40

evidence that this is a glass that came

40:42

from the bar, not from inside. But Alice,

40:44

what do you think? Officer Lang,

40:46

is he in the conspiracy

40:48

or is he conspiracy adjacent or is

40:50

he just incompetent? So I'm going

40:52

to be the less charitable one since you've

40:54

taken the high road of being the charitable

40:56

one. Because he handles so much evidence, I

40:59

think the defense needs him to be part

41:01

of the conspiracy because he has the glass,

41:03

he finds the red tail light. He's the

41:05

one who actually talks to the Alberts in

41:07

the first place. And so potentially adjacent, but

41:09

I think for the defense, because he touches

41:11

on so many important things at the beginning,

41:13

he needs to have at least gotten the

41:15

back call that you better be doing things

41:18

to be mitigating any fingers

41:20

being pointed at the Alberts, so I'm going

41:22

to put him in the conspiracy camp. And

41:24

I think you're right. And I think the defense

41:26

would definitely put him in the conspiracy camp. This

41:28

whole notion that he's been in a fight before

41:31

from one of the Alberts, you know, the idea

41:33

that he's, he is biased. He is the one

41:35

who finds the glass. I think the defense would

41:37

agree with you. I think they would say he

41:39

is in the conspiracy camp. So we'll put him

41:42

in the conspiracy camp for now. Okay. So then

41:44

officer Charles Ray testifies. He doesn't have a whole

41:46

lot to say. The most important thing about him

41:48

is he pulled his

41:50

car in behind Reed's vehicle

41:53

at around 8.25 AM

41:55

the day of John's death

41:57

and his dashboard camera catches.

42:00

back of her car and you can tell

42:02

that her tail light is damaged from that

42:04

camera. Now he didn't notice it and it's

42:06

there's snow sort of obscuring part of it

42:08

as well so it's not necessarily something you

42:10

would notice but it's right there in front

42:12

of you. Prosecution really struggles with how

42:14

to get this in, how to get him

42:16

to talk about it. The defense objects a

42:18

lot, wins a lot of their objections. The

42:20

jury sees it but this is kind of

42:22

a fail I felt like in the prosecution.

42:24

They did not do a good job of

42:26

exploiting this. This video will come back later

42:29

but it shows at least by 825 the

42:31

vehicle is damaged so the defense is going

42:33

to have an explanation for this and you

42:36

can just decide for yourself whether

42:38

or not that holds. So I felt

42:40

like that was a little bit of a

42:42

lost opportunity because you're right. I mean Lieutenant

42:44

Ray didn't have much to say and that's

42:46

okay but the dash cam says way more.

42:48

So I guess you have you have

42:50

him on to say this is my dash cam and then I

42:52

would have spent all my time bringing out the fact to

42:55

have the jury look at the dash cam themselves.

42:58

Yeah and the farther back you

43:00

can push the damage to the

43:02

taillight the better because obviously

43:05

if the taillight is damaged earlier

43:07

then you have to believe once again a

43:11

fortuitous event that assists the

43:13

conspiracy because she accidentally damages

43:16

her taillight just so

43:18

happens to be the day that they're going

43:20

to find John dead in the snow and

43:22

she's going to think she hit him and there's

43:24

going to be evidence that she hit him which

43:26

presumably was planted by the police according to the

43:28

defense but that is only really possible because the

43:30

taillight is already damaged. I mean obviously there's a

43:32

world in which the police just smash the taillight

43:35

and do it but they don't have to do

43:37

that because she had damaged the taillight on her

43:39

own so that's going to keep coming back when

43:41

it was damaged for the first time. Okay

43:44

Michael Camarano. So we've

43:46

left the investigation

43:48

behind for now. We're going to come back to

43:50

it obviously but now we're going to back up

43:53

a little bit. We've done the finding of the

43:55

body in the immediate aftermath. Now

43:57

we're going to back up and talk about the night.

44:00

before. So Michael Camarano is a friend

44:02

of John's. Their kids had both just

44:04

gotten into the same Catholic high school

44:06

and they wanted to celebrate. He'd seen

44:09

John and Karen a few times actually

44:11

a couple of times a week. So he was

44:13

pretty familiar with both of them. He went to

44:16

McCarthy's that night. They were drinking Bud Light, which

44:18

he confirmed they, we have

44:20

video of this. We have him and

44:22

John drinking Bud Light. Then we see

44:24

Karen come in. She's drinking a clear

44:26

liquid out of a glass with a

44:28

straw. Karen typically drank vodka vodka tonics,

44:30

which is consistent with this glass. That

44:33

night he said everything was normal. They were

44:35

affectionate with each other and they were friendly.

44:38

This is an example of the prosecution is

44:40

calling witnesses who are going to set the

44:42

scene who say plenty of really good things

44:44

for Karen, who set it up as if

44:46

that night, whatever we're going to learn about

44:48

their overall relationship that night, at least

44:51

at that point, everybody was friendly.

44:53

Everybody was happy. They seemed happy

44:55

together. Now in the

44:58

sort of pure Massachusetts moment,

45:00

Mike had to leave the bar

45:02

after his kid got hit in

45:04

the head with a hockey stick

45:06

and lost a tooth, which is

45:08

just, I love Massachusetts so much.

45:10

So he had to leave and he would learn

45:12

later that morning that John didn't come home that

45:14

night. He actually drove over to John's house to

45:17

see if he could figure out what was up.

45:20

He was surprised to see the garage store left

45:22

open, which wasn't like John Reed's

45:24

SUV was pulled into the garage. Mike actually

45:26

tried to clear out the snow and close

45:28

the garage door because he knew how angry

45:31

John would get when he

45:33

got home and saw that, which is

45:35

one of those moments where he just doesn't

45:37

realize what's going on. Mike would eventually take

45:39

John's daughter home to be with his daughter

45:42

because they were friends and he wanted her

45:44

to be with somebody while

45:46

this whole search was going on. Yeah,

45:48

this is where the storytelling comes in, right? There

45:50

was the very technical people who don't know anything

45:53

about John. We started with the first witnesses who

45:55

humanized John and now we're going back to that.

45:57

And I'll say I got, you know,

45:59

very as Camarano was testifying

46:02

because you see he's

46:04

testifying to everything that's

46:06

happening right before he finds out that John is

46:08

dead. And you see how everything

46:10

is cut off in the midst, right? They were

46:12

just together drinking. They were

46:14

just celebrating their daughters getting into a great

46:17

school. And he

46:19

was clearing out the garage, right? It's not like John is some

46:21

angry person that his garage would be open. I'd

46:24

be angry if my garage was open because it's getting filled with snow

46:26

during this blizzard. All of this,

46:29

you feel the import of a life

46:31

cut short. I thought this

46:33

was effective storytelling because we'd been on so many

46:35

technical witnesses up to this point. How

46:42

much do you think you're paying in subscriptions every

46:44

month? The answer is probably

46:46

more than you think. Over

46:49

74% of people have subscriptions they've

46:51

forgotten about. I

46:53

definitely did. Like, I

46:56

completely forgot I had about five

46:58

different streaming services that I never

47:00

logged into. Thanks

47:03

to Rocket Money, I'm no longer wasting money

47:05

on the ones I forgot about. Rocket

47:08

Money is a personal finance app that

47:10

finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors

47:12

your spending, and helps lower your bills

47:14

so that you can grow your savings.

47:18

With Rocket Money, I have full control

47:20

over my subscriptions and a clear view

47:22

of my expenses. I can

47:24

see all my subscriptions in one place, and if

47:26

I see something I don't want, Rocket Money can

47:28

help me cancel it with just a few taps.

47:31

Rocket Money will even try to negotiate lower bills

47:33

for you by up to 20%. All

47:36

you have to do is submit a picture of

47:38

your bill and Rocket Money takes care of the

47:40

rest. They'll deal with customer service for

47:42

you. Rocket Money has over

47:44

5 million users and has saved a total

47:47

of $500 million in

47:49

cancelled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a

47:51

year when using all of

47:54

the app's features. Stop wasting

47:57

money on things you don't use. Cancel your

47:59

unwanted subscriptions. description by

48:01

going to rocketmoney.com/prosecutors.

48:04

That's rocketmoney.com/prosecutors.

48:09

rocketmoney.com/prosecutors.

48:18

So then we have Catherine Camarano who is

48:21

Michael's wife. She's going to talk about

48:23

how good a man John was and

48:25

how much he loved her kids. The morning

48:27

of John's death, Karen, who called

48:29

a ton of people, called her between

48:32

4am and 5am screaming for

48:34

Mike. She told Karen

48:37

over and over to calm down

48:40

and to hang up, but she

48:42

wouldn't do it. So she hung up

48:44

on her. She called her

48:46

husband, but he didn't answer. She

48:48

called Reed back and Jen McCabe, he

48:50

was one of her daughter's basketball coaches,

48:52

was now there. Her understanding

48:55

was that Jen, Carrie Roberts,

48:57

and Reed were

48:59

going to go look for John. She'd actually known

49:01

Carrie Roberts since high school. At

49:04

634, Karen texted Catherine, he's dead.

49:07

Two minutes later, she texted that John

49:09

was found in the snow. She reads a

49:11

lot of these text messages going back and

49:13

forth and it is really heartbreaking because she's

49:16

saying things like, I'm sure he's, as

49:18

we all do, right? Coming down a

49:20

friend, his brothers, or out a friend's

49:22

couch. And when she

49:24

gets the text that he's dead, she doesn't believe it.

49:26

She texts back, are you serious? So

49:29

next on the stand is Kurt Roberts.

49:32

Remember, Carrie Roberts was with Jen McCabe

49:34

and Karen Reed to go search for

49:36

John in those early hours before John

49:39

was found. Kurt is the husband of

49:41

Carrie Roberts and he was drinking at

49:43

CF McCarthy's with John and Michael Camarano

49:46

the night before. The men drank Bud

49:48

lights and he also testified that Karen

49:50

had a vodka tonic, which was her

49:52

drink of choice. He also testified that

49:55

everyone seemed to be normal. There were

49:57

no heightened emotions or anything like that.

49:59

Nothing stood out in his mind,

50:01

even in hindsight, as being

50:04

out of the ordinary. Now

50:06

the next morning, his wife gets up very

50:08

early and starts putting on clothes, and he

50:10

asks her, what's up? Now,

50:13

Carrie tells Kurt that Karen has

50:15

called and John is missing. Kurt

50:18

testified, again, that he didn't

50:20

detect any tension between Karen

50:22

or John, and he didn't

50:24

think that either of them were drunk when

50:26

he left the bar, although Kurt also says

50:28

he was in bed by midnight, and we

50:30

know that both Karen and John stayed out

50:33

not much longer than midnight. The

50:35

next witness is Rebecca Treyers.

50:38

So Rebecca didn't personally

50:40

know the people involved here. Rather,

50:43

she was the bartender at the waterfall,

50:46

which is a bar, and it closes around

50:48

1 a.m. with last call

50:51

at 12.45. John,

50:53

Brian Albert and his wife, and

50:55

ATF agent Brian Higgins were all

50:57

at the waterfall drinking when Rebecca

50:59

was also there bartending. Rebecca testified

51:01

that John left a $10 tip

51:03

on a $16 tab, and

51:08

she testified that when everyone left,

51:10

it didn't appear that anyone was

51:12

drunk. Which I find her testimony

51:14

to be interesting because when I hear other people

51:16

say that people aren't drunk, I'm always like, well,

51:18

that's because you were drunk. And if there's one

51:21

thing that makes you think other people aren't drunk,

51:23

it's when you've been drinking. It's always amazing. Like

51:25

at CrimeCon this year, I didn't

51:27

drink as much because I'm getting

51:30

older and I'm trying to be more responsible, so I

51:32

just didn't drink as much. And I was reminded at

51:34

how much everybody else was drinking because it was much

51:36

more evident to me. Whereas if I'd had more to

51:39

drink, I would've thought, no, but it was fine. But

51:42

she's the bartender, and she's speaking about this.

51:44

And I thought that was interesting, even though

51:46

everybody had a lot to drink and they

51:48

will testify to the fact they had a

51:50

lot to drink, but they weren't overly intoxicated,

51:52

it seems like. And notice

51:54

here, I think this actually goes to the prosecution

51:56

not trying to twist facts that are not in

51:59

their favor in particular. The

52:01

fact that basically all of these witnesses are saying

52:03

the same thing. No tension. They know Karen and

52:05

John know their kind of usual rhythms and nothing

52:07

seemed out of the ordinary. So

52:10

if they're trying to build up a story

52:12

that this was a crime of passion or

52:14

they were fighting that night and that's why

52:16

she on purpose rammed into him to kill

52:18

him, the facts aren't there and they're not

52:20

hiding from them either. And this is realistic,

52:23

right? The defense you can build a story

52:25

but the prosecution you kind of, you have

52:27

the facts that you have. You have to build the

52:29

best story you have out of it. But when I

52:31

get these kind of counter facts that don't exactly help

52:33

the prosecution story, it tends

52:35

to make me think I'm getting more of the full

52:37

story from the prosecution. Now they don't

52:39

have to put on everyone up there but they've

52:41

had several witnesses back to back say kind of

52:43

the same thing. No one seemed drunk. Everyone was

52:46

having a good time. Seemed to be in good

52:48

spirits. No heightened emotions. And you know it's interesting

52:50

because it's a double-edged sword for

52:52

the prosecution and for the defense. If

52:54

this were purely a DUI homicide then

52:57

Karen being really drunk would be a

52:59

valuable fact. But because

53:01

it's also second-degree murder, her

53:03

not being that drunk actually helps the

53:05

prosecution when they get to intent. That

53:07

it wasn't just she was so drunk

53:10

she didn't even know what happened. Yeah,

53:12

she'd had some drinks and maybe that

53:14

affected her but everybody said she

53:16

wasn't that drunk. And so when

53:18

this happened, if it happened, she knew exactly what

53:20

she was doing. So we'll see

53:22

how this goes by the time we get to

53:24

the end. And remember one other thing to keep

53:26

in mind, these things are all very complex. We

53:28

do have her blood alcohol level.

53:31

She was in fact drunk. Well kind of. This

53:33

will be debated later too but these are all

53:35

different things that we have to pull upon in

53:37

terms of trying to determine her state of mind.

53:40

State of mind is a whole other

53:42

game but we'll get there. Okay. Good luck with this one, Alice.

53:46

I'm sorry. I'm going to butcher his name and it's

53:48

because I listened to it on mega speed when I

53:50

was listening to testimony. But Nicholas

53:53

Colakeithis is the next witness

53:55

on the stand. basketball

54:00

game. And he ended

54:02

up with the O'Keeffe's and the Alberts

54:05

at the waterfall bar. By O'Keeffe's I

54:07

mean Karen and John. And they're all

54:09

at the waterfall bar. Remember we heard

54:11

from the bartender right before this and

54:13

everyone was drinking and generally in a

54:16

good mood he said. And

54:18

they discuss whether going to another bar

54:20

or going back to the Albert's home

54:22

was the next step. Everyone's having a

54:24

good time. They didn't want the

54:26

party to end. He testified that Karen

54:28

wanted to go to the Alberts. But

54:31

Nicholas himself said that he and his

54:33

wife didn't really want to go. Eventually

54:35

they all went to the Alberts home

54:37

but Nicholas and his wife didn't stay

54:39

for the after party. They actually went

54:41

home and he again testified

54:43

that everyone seemed happy. There was kind

54:45

of no tension among the Alberts or

54:48

Karen or John. These people are really

54:50

interesting because they're almost throwaway witnesses. But if

54:52

you think about it for a second you

54:54

realize how kind of important they are. There's

54:56

two things that stick out to me about

54:58

them. Number one they must

55:00

be so happy that they just went home.

55:03

Because if they hadn't gone home, if

55:05

they had gone to the Alberts they

55:07

would be part of the conspiracy. And

55:10

who knows what their lives would have been

55:12

like the last two years. But as it

55:14

is they're relatively minor participants. That's the first

55:16

thing. The second thing the

55:18

defense for reasons that are unclear to me and

55:20

some of you have fought me on this and

55:22

that's fine that you have your own theory about

55:24

what happened. The defense's theory

55:27

is this was premeditated to some

55:29

extent. This attack was planned. That's

55:32

what the defense thinks. They're going to tell

55:34

you that Higgins and Albert were practicing for

55:36

the fight in the bar. They're

55:38

going to tell you that the dog and

55:40

Colin Albert were waiting in the basement. They're

55:43

going to tell you that this was all

55:45

driven by some prior something

55:47

about the grass. They're going to

55:49

tell you that Jennifer McCabe was

55:51

trying to separate John

55:53

and Karen and get John alone. That's

55:55

the story they're going to sell. At

55:58

the same time they're apparently doing They're

56:00

just inviting everybody in the world back to this

56:02

party. This is the weirdest

56:04

premeditated attack ever. Because what

56:06

if Nicholas and Karen

56:09

had gone back and been like, whoa, whoa, whoa,

56:11

what are y'all doing? Why are

56:13

y'all beating up our friend and throwing him in the

56:15

snow? They wouldn't have known how

56:17

that was going to go down, but you got

56:19

to believe that this just sort of ad hoc

56:21

group of people who all got randomly invited to

56:23

come back to this house where there were people

56:25

already there who you didn't even necessarily know who

56:28

they were, how long they were going to stay,

56:30

could have been part of this conspiracy, but

56:33

for the fact that they decided just to go

56:35

home. And it's a weird quirk. If

56:37

you go with the, it wasn't planned,

56:39

it was random, just something happened,

56:42

it went wrong and they had to cover it

56:44

up. That works a lot better. But for some

56:46

reason, the defense is really invested in this. This

56:48

was a planned attack from the get go. And

56:50

I don't know if it's because it

56:53

had to be planned for the rest of the

56:55

conspiracy to come together. It had to have put

56:57

a little effort into making sure the conspiracy was

56:59

going to work out overall or what, but to

57:01

me, it's a stretch. That's a

57:03

really good point. How uncontrolled your

57:06

premeditated attack would be if

57:08

you have all these people coming over, some

57:10

leaving, some not going, are they leaving because

57:12

they're chickening out? Were they part of the

57:14

premeditated conspiracy? And now they're chickening out. Now

57:16

you have people who are liabilities because they

57:18

can testify against the premeditated conspiracy, but they

57:20

have no blood on their hands quite literally.

57:22

I mean, think this through in terms of

57:24

what the conspiracy would have to be, because

57:26

if I had called Keith as part

57:28

of my conspiracy, they knew what was going to

57:30

happen. And I knew that they also drove away

57:32

once they got to the house. I'm sweating over

57:34

here because I'm like, well, there are a couple

57:37

of witnesses who can testify against us who know

57:39

about our plan, but who have whatever reason have

57:41

cold feet now or flip

57:43

side. They had no idea and they were just going to

57:45

end up and be part of like what was happening in

57:47

the house. So then we have Karen

57:49

Kalakeitha. She's

58:00

Nicholas's wife and she confirms basically

58:02

what he said. Jen

58:04

McCabe tried to get her and Nicholas to come

58:06

to the house, which once again, Jen McCabe key

58:09

conspirator here. I mean, I don't care how vast

58:11

or narrow your conspiracy is. Jen

58:14

McCabe, she's trying to get more people to come over

58:16

to the house to be witnesses to what's about to

58:18

happen. Apparently. So she

58:21

is inviting them to come over, but Karen was

58:23

having none of it. She wanted to go home.

58:25

She said that at the same

58:27

time, while this is not great for the

58:29

defense's overall conspiracy, theory, she's also saying that

58:31

Reed was singing John's praises, talking

58:34

about how wonderful he was. And her

58:36

only complaint was that they weren't able

58:38

to spend as much time together alone

58:40

as she would like, because obviously John

58:42

had the kids that he was

58:44

taken care of. So these are the

58:47

randos. I think we can all agree and

58:49

I think everyone would agree they are neither

58:51

part of the conspiracy nor are

58:53

they conspiracy adjacent, nor are they the in

58:55

confidence. They're just people who were

58:57

there. But one thing to note about all this, there

59:00

are a lot of witnesses to this, right?

59:02

This is whatever happened, whether you think Karen

59:04

redid it or this was some police hit

59:07

conspiracy. This was not

59:09

done in the, it was done in

59:11

the darkest night, but this was done in the

59:13

midst of a lot of people being able to

59:15

see a lot of things. They were at a

59:17

public bar. They were all coming back to

59:19

a party at a house and that's

59:21

something to keep in mind. We

59:24

have a lot of different viewpoints to try

59:26

and understand what's happening this night. Then

59:28

we have Chris Albert who testifies. Chris Albert,

59:31

who is going to be on the conspiracy

59:33

list, he would have to be a key

59:35

part of this conspiracy. I will say now

59:38

we're getting into watch these people testify. A lot of

59:40

people we've talked about, if you don't want to watch

59:42

them, don't watch them. But now we're getting to the

59:44

alternative suspects, the murderers or the people

59:47

who conspired to murder or the people

59:49

who were accessories to murder. Chris Albert

59:51

would be one of them. Now he

59:53

is Brian Albert's brother. He

59:56

owns a pizza shop in town and John

59:58

would bring his nephew to the the shop

1:00:00

a couple of days each week to grab

1:00:02

a slice. In fact, they'd swung by the afternoon

1:00:04

when everything went wrong. Chris was

1:00:06

friends with John, at least according to him,

1:00:08

and he texted him that night about going

1:00:10

out, telling him to get over to the

1:00:12

bar or he'd eff up his lawn. This

1:00:14

is the defense. I don't

1:00:17

know. Look, the defense has

1:00:19

done a great job at times with

1:00:21

various witnesses, but there are things

1:00:23

that I just do not understand. And this is

1:00:25

one of them. This is obviously a joke, but

1:00:28

the defense, by the time they get to Cross

1:00:30

and Chris, it's like this is

1:00:32

very serious. This is a threat. He threatened

1:00:34

him. He was going to eff up his

1:00:36

lawn unless John came out. It's like John

1:00:38

was filled with fear for his lawn, and

1:00:40

so he had to go out with them.

1:00:42

That's how they present it. And guys,

1:00:45

you have to know a little bit more, and

1:00:47

it does come out, because a lot of you

1:00:49

are saying, eff up his what? He

1:00:51

didn't say, I'm going to eff up your face or I'm

1:00:53

going to eff you up. Just talking

1:00:55

about his lawn, like the green space in

1:00:57

front of your house, right? That's

1:01:00

not a usual threat. And you're right.

1:01:02

That's not a usual threat. It is

1:01:04

a specific thing to John that's an

1:01:06

inside joke. Well, John loved his lawn,

1:01:08

apparently. He took very good care of it. He

1:01:11

was a grass man, is what he was. So

1:01:13

he was a big fan, and

1:01:15

the defense will later present this

1:01:17

as some sort of threat or

1:01:20

something showing hostility between the

1:01:23

two. Though it's pretty clear

1:01:25

that this was a running joke with

1:01:28

Chris and his wife and

1:01:30

John. The defense, and once

1:01:33

again, just will later present a

1:01:35

picture. They will introduce a picture

1:01:37

and evidence of Chris Albert

1:01:40

and his wife standing on

1:01:42

John's lawn and

1:01:44

laughing in the picture that they

1:01:46

then sent to John, which was obviously

1:01:48

part of a joke. But

1:01:51

it's pretty clear this is a running joke. So

1:01:54

the defense are going to enter this photo. They

1:01:58

zoom in on the photo. Like, are

1:02:01

you giving him a thumbs up while

1:02:03

you're standing on his yard? And

1:02:05

Chris and his wife joked

1:02:08

about this. Chris actually in her

1:02:10

phone had John listed as

1:02:12

Nevercracker, which I had never heard

1:02:15

of, what I learned from the

1:02:17

defense's cross-examination is a character from

1:02:19

a children's movie who hated people

1:02:21

walking on his front lawn.

1:02:24

So it's just- Clearly a joke. It's

1:02:26

clearly a joke. And this

1:02:28

is such a serious thing

1:02:31

to posit this as somehow

1:02:33

being the genesis of

1:02:35

a feud that's going to lead to John's

1:02:37

death. It's just, and the fact of

1:02:39

the matter is, the reason they took that photo

1:02:42

is because they were taking care of like John

1:02:44

was out and they were doing something in his

1:02:46

house, picking up the mail or something. They took

1:02:48

this opportunity to do this photo and

1:02:50

send it to him. So in any event- Look,

1:02:53

a lot of times we know the defense

1:02:55

is just trying to poke a bunch of

1:02:57

holes and create enough holes in a story

1:02:59

to create reasonable doubt. But it's calls like

1:03:01

these that really cheapens their entire conspiracy. If

1:03:04

I'm in the jury, I'm laughing under my

1:03:06

breath because I'm like, this is so clearly a

1:03:08

joke. If you actually have so much evidence of

1:03:10

this premeditated, terrible conspiracy

1:03:12

to kill a friend,

1:03:15

someone they clearly loved at some point

1:03:17

in life that they took care of their

1:03:19

lawn or yard and had

1:03:22

an ongoing joke with, then

1:03:24

you wouldn't be putting in something like this. Cause

1:03:27

you just wanted this in there because he said

1:03:29

F up something. That's why, you

1:03:31

know, you probably did a control F and wanted to

1:03:33

look for like profanities. Cause we do that all the

1:03:35

time. I do searches for profane words to try and

1:03:37

get to the hottest documents all the time. But if

1:03:40

this is the hottest thing you have, I as the

1:03:42

jury am thinking, hmm, really sounds

1:03:44

like you're grasping for straws here. So I thought

1:03:46

it was a misstep to enter something like this.

1:03:49

Conspiracies happen, but conspiracies, it's kind

1:03:51

of like salt. A

1:03:53

little bit of conspiracy goes a long way.

1:03:55

And you need, you know, in a case

1:03:57

like this, you're the defense, you want to

1:03:59

have a little bit of... conspiracy to make,

1:04:01

to spice up your, your story, to

1:04:03

make it work, but you want to keep the

1:04:05

conspiracy narrow. You don't want to go, never go

1:04:07

full conspiracy and they're going full conspiracy just all

1:04:10

the way. And when you do

1:04:12

that, it makes it silly at some

1:04:14

point, at some point, it just becomes, this is

1:04:16

not it guys. You may have some good points.

1:04:18

You know, maybe you can prove that he was

1:04:20

bitten by a dog. Maybe you can prove that

1:04:23

Chris Albert's son is a bully who, who just didn't

1:04:25

like anybody who would fight at the drop of the

1:04:27

hat. Maybe you can prove all that. But the lawn

1:04:30

thing, like once again, what is

1:04:32

the point of the lawn to show some

1:04:34

sort of premeditation, to show this was a

1:04:36

plan, to show that this was a long

1:04:38

running feud and I just, I feel like

1:04:40

that's a mistake. I think something

1:04:42

happened at the house and they had to

1:04:44

cover it up is such a better conspiracy

1:04:46

theory than this was all part of getting

1:04:48

him there. And they threatened his lawn to

1:04:50

get him to come to the bar, but

1:04:52

he did come to the bar and came

1:04:54

from CF McCarthy's over to waterfalls. Chris

1:04:56

and his brother were drinking with Brian Higgins,

1:04:58

who is the ATF agent who we've mentioned

1:05:00

before. So John and Karen

1:05:02

show up. Karen in a humorous moment

1:05:05

for everybody was actually hiding a glass

1:05:07

from the last bar in her jacket,

1:05:09

and I will go ahead and guarantee

1:05:11

that was not water. She did not

1:05:13

steal a glass of water from the

1:05:15

last bar. Clearly the clear liquid that

1:05:17

it was in it was

1:05:19

alcohol of some sort. Chris thought this was

1:05:21

funny. He made a comment about it. Everybody

1:05:23

was having a good time. Everybody seemed normal.

1:05:25

He talked to Karen. She really

1:05:28

wanted to go and get pizza at his place.

1:05:30

This was something she really wanted to do. She

1:05:32

wanted to go get pizza to celebrate the kids

1:05:34

getting into good schools. Chris had sort of a

1:05:36

tradition that when they would celebrate, they would do

1:05:38

that. Friends would go over to the pizza shop.

1:05:40

They close it down. They cook some pizzas. They'd

1:05:42

hang out. They'd eat. They drink beers. It sounds

1:05:44

like a lot of fun and she wanted to

1:05:47

do that, but Chris and Brian

1:05:49

were actually in the midst of a

1:05:51

weight loss challenge and the

1:05:53

weighing date was coming up and Chris was

1:05:55

afraid of blowing it. So he's

1:05:57

drinking milk a lot. I guess that's fine, but he

1:06:00

didn't. want to eat any pizza because he was afraid

1:06:02

that he might lose the weight loss challenge because of that. This

1:06:05

is apparently something they did every year to

1:06:07

raise money for charity. At some point he

1:06:09

buys a round of fireball shots for the

1:06:11

group as things are wrapping up. That's

1:06:14

bad news guys. Whenever the fireball shots come out,

1:06:16

it's time to go home. But

1:06:18

he was doing that. He then actually

1:06:20

walked home around midnight. He said by

1:06:23

the time he got home, he was

1:06:25

freezing and he went straight to bed.

1:06:28

About 10 minutes after he got home,

1:06:30

his son Colin came home. This is

1:06:32

going to be important because Colin is

1:06:34

one of the people who has been

1:06:37

posited as John's killer.

1:06:39

So Colin had been over

1:06:41

at the Albert's house that

1:06:43

night celebrating Brian Junior's birthday.

1:06:46

Colin saw Chris and told him, good night

1:06:48

guys. I love you. I'm home, which was

1:06:50

sort of the thing he would do when

1:06:52

he came home around his midnight curfew.

1:06:55

The next day Chris woke up around 8.30

1:06:58

that morning to the shocking news that

1:07:00

John had been found and had died.

1:07:02

He said he was in shock. He

1:07:05

would eventually go over to his brother's house around

1:07:07

9.30. He said

1:07:09

he found Brian and his wife along

1:07:11

with Jen McCabe. They were sitting around

1:07:13

the kitchen table, obviously

1:07:15

also in shock. Now

1:07:17

on cross, as we said, the

1:07:20

defense, they're going to dig into

1:07:22

this grass thing, but they're also going to talk

1:07:24

a lot about Chris and

1:07:26

the Albert's connections in town. They

1:07:29

talk about his deep roots. The fact that

1:07:31

he had just been elected

1:07:33

as selectman. They

1:07:35

was not elected till after John's death,

1:07:37

but nevertheless shows sort of his, he's

1:07:39

well liked in the community. He's connected

1:07:41

in the community. He's arguably powerful in

1:07:43

the community. They noted that

1:07:46

Brian had actually moved after John's death.

1:07:48

Chris would say they discussed Brian selling

1:07:50

his home before the death. John

1:07:53

would confirm this later that they had already hired a

1:07:55

realtor. Though I just got to tell you, if somebody

1:07:57

dies on my front yard, I might want to just

1:08:00

I don't really see that as some big thing.

1:08:02

And as a matter of fact, just point a

1:08:04

fact. If you commit

1:08:07

a crime in your home's crime scene,

1:08:09

don't move. Because guess what

1:08:11

happens when you move? Other people can

1:08:13

get in it. It is your expectation of privacy. Exactly.

1:08:15

You no longer have an expectation of privacy. Anybody can

1:08:17

just walk in there now. They don't have to worry

1:08:19

about it. So. You know who's gonna show up to

1:08:22

that open house? The police. Yeah. And

1:08:24

you know who would know that? A guy who was a cop.

1:08:27

But nevertheless, they sell the house

1:08:29

after John's death and they

1:08:31

move somewhere else. So they talk

1:08:34

about the Alberts, chief of police. They talk

1:08:36

about their connections to Officer Lang, to Michael

1:08:38

Proctor. He's gonna be the lead investigator. The

1:08:41

defense is really gonna hammer on this relationship

1:08:43

with Proctor because Proctor's a real weak. He's

1:08:45

a weak link for the prosecution as

1:08:47

we'll eventually get to. Now, they

1:08:49

also tried to downplay this relationship

1:08:52

with John, noting that, you know,

1:08:55

they never really exchanged phone numbers

1:08:57

until sometime shortly before John's death.

1:08:59

And the defense does the whole,

1:09:02

I'm gonna be a jerk to the witness and

1:09:04

hope he gets angry thing, which you see, which

1:09:06

is a strategy in which this defense team is

1:09:08

really good at. They are really good at being

1:09:11

the jerks. We were trying to get somebody mad. Chris

1:09:13

really never gets angry. You know, he's

1:09:15

cool as a cucumber despite the fact that his son

1:09:17

is going to be someone they're going to accuse of

1:09:19

murder. I thought it was interesting, but he just sort

1:09:21

of goes through it. The

1:09:24

defense notes that Chris said he was

1:09:26

home by 1210, but there was evidence

1:09:28

he didn't leave the bar until 1213.

1:09:31

This is a relatively insignificant discrepancy,

1:09:34

but it might play some role

1:09:36

in exactly when Colin returns home.

1:09:39

One of the defense theories, as I said, is

1:09:41

that Colin got into a fight with John at

1:09:43

the Albert house, killed him, and

1:09:45

then went home. The walk from

1:09:47

the waterfall to the Albert's house is maybe

1:09:50

10 minutes. There was an argument about whether

1:09:52

it was more or less than seven minutes.

1:09:54

So it's likely that either way, assuming

1:09:57

Chris is telling the truth about walking home at all,

1:09:59

I guess is up in the air. He got home

1:10:02

sometime around 1220, 1230, which would put Colin walking in

1:10:07

the door at around the time

1:10:09

John and Karen would have gotten

1:10:11

to Brian Albert's home. So you

1:10:13

can argue about times all you want. If

1:10:16

Chris is telling the truth about seeing

1:10:18

his son, his son didn't

1:10:20

do it. Obviously, Chris is a conspirator

1:10:22

in the defense's theory, and they're going

1:10:24

to say, you can't believe anything he

1:10:26

has to say. How

1:10:33

much do you think you're paying in subscriptions

1:10:35

every month? The answer is probably

1:10:37

more than you think. Over

1:10:39

74% of people have subscriptions they've

1:10:42

forgotten about. I definitely

1:10:44

did. Like, I

1:10:46

completely forgot I had about

1:10:49

five different streaming services that

1:10:51

I never logged into. Thanks

1:10:54

to Rocket Money, I'm no longer wasting money

1:10:56

on the ones I forgot about. Rocket

1:10:58

Money is a personal finance app that

1:11:00

finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors

1:11:03

your spending, and helps lower your bills

1:11:05

so that you can grow your savings.

1:11:07

With Rocket Money, I have full control

1:11:09

over my subscriptions and a clear view

1:11:11

of my expenses. I can see all

1:11:13

my subscriptions in one place, and if

1:11:15

I see something I don't want, Rocket

1:11:17

Money can help me cancel it with

1:11:20

just a few taps. Rocket

1:11:22

Money will even try to negotiate lower bills

1:11:24

for you by up to 20%. All

1:11:27

you have to do is submit a picture

1:11:29

of your bill, and Rocket Money takes care

1:11:31

of the rest. They'll deal with customer service

1:11:33

for you. Rocket Money has over

1:11:35

5 million users and has saved a total

1:11:37

of $500 million in canceled

1:11:40

subscriptions, saving members up

1:11:43

to $740 a year when using all of

1:11:45

the app's features. Stop

1:11:47

wasting money on things

1:11:50

you don't use. Cancel

1:11:53

your unwanted subscription by

1:11:55

going to rocketmoney.com/prosecutors. That's

1:11:58

rocketmoney.com/prosecutors. Rocket Money. That was

1:12:00

a lot. All

1:12:11

right, with that, so I

1:12:14

mean, you're really beginning to see all that. I mean, Chris

1:12:16

is right there, right? He

1:12:18

sees John essentially right

1:12:21

before John dies. And

1:12:23

to kind of back up or to

1:12:25

further explain what Chris has just said,

1:12:28

the prosecution calls Julie Albert, Chris's wife,

1:12:30

to the stand. And she testified that

1:12:32

they lived just two houses down from

1:12:34

John. They were neighbors and they were

1:12:36

friendly. Julie pretty much

1:12:38

confirms everything that Chris just testified

1:12:40

about. She said that she

1:12:42

left the bar early because she had a migraine

1:12:45

that night. And when she got home, her youngest

1:12:47

son was at home while Colin

1:12:49

had not gotten back yet. This

1:12:52

timeline seems to all coincide very well

1:12:54

with what Chris has said. Her

1:12:56

oldest son is in the Navy and was away,

1:12:58

so wasn't home at all. And

1:13:00

she said her husband arrived

1:13:02

home sometime around 1210 and

1:13:05

pretty much got straight into bed. Colin,

1:13:07

she said, arrived home 10 or

1:13:10

15 minutes after her husband got

1:13:12

home. Again, pretty consistent with

1:13:14

what Chris just testified about. She

1:13:16

said Colin came upstairs and

1:13:18

said good night as he normally does when he

1:13:20

gets home and went to bed. Julie

1:13:23

then said she woke up around 8 a.m.

1:13:25

and she saw that she had a missed

1:13:28

call from Jennifer McCabe. She thought

1:13:30

nothing of it and instead she went

1:13:32

to get donuts for her nephew, Brian

1:13:34

Jr.'s birthday, as was her

1:13:36

tradition. When she arrived to

1:13:39

the Albert home, she went in the

1:13:41

door and to her surprise,

1:13:43

everyone was sitting and looking visibly

1:13:45

upset. She didn't know, she hadn't

1:13:47

gotten word about anything being out of the

1:13:49

ordinary. She said she asked

1:13:51

what was wrong and they told her that something had happened to John.

1:13:54

She asked if John was okay and they

1:13:56

said they didn't know. She

1:13:58

testified that no one at the Albert

1:14:01

home had visible injuries that she

1:14:03

saw, including her son, Colin. And

1:14:06

of course, that's important here because

1:14:08

if one of them or all

1:14:10

of them were part of a conspiracy to attack

1:14:12

and then ultimately kill, John, who

1:14:14

is a 16 year veteran

1:14:17

cop, it would not be unreasonable to think

1:14:19

that they would have self defense

1:14:21

wounds or some wounds from

1:14:23

John fighting for his life. And

1:14:26

you know, just, these are some

1:14:28

cold blooded killers. If you think they're all

1:14:30

involved in this her going to get donuts,

1:14:32

going to, going to donkeys to

1:14:35

get the donuts that day, to just

1:14:37

keep playing the part of, Oh

1:14:40

no, this is just a normal day. I'm

1:14:42

just taking donuts to my nephew, as I

1:14:44

do every year. Just if

1:14:46

they're really all involved in this, it's just,

1:14:48

man. And that's the thing. Like you, you

1:14:51

see these people testifying, if you watch their

1:14:53

testimony and you got like the

1:14:55

pizza shop owner, you know, and you got like

1:14:58

this person's a, a librarian

1:15:00

and this person's a cop and this person

1:15:02

works in the AG's office. And it's just,

1:15:04

they all feel like this is just normal

1:15:07

family and it's the salt of the earth.

1:15:09

But under the defenses theory, they

1:15:12

are just like the Manson family. I mean,

1:15:14

they have got this just cold blooded scheme

1:15:18

to kill John. And I think once again,

1:15:20

if they can narrow that conspiracy down a

1:15:22

little bit, it would be a little bit

1:15:24

more believable than what they're presenting so far.

1:15:27

So she goes on to testify that a few

1:15:29

days later police came to take her statement about

1:15:31

that night. And the person to take

1:15:33

her statement was none other than Proctor,

1:15:37

who was one of those troopers. He

1:15:39

was the brother of one of her

1:15:41

close friends, Courtney Proctor. The defense focuses

1:15:44

on phone conversations between Courtney and Julie

1:15:46

and the days after the death and

1:15:49

leading up to Karen Reed's arrest. So this

1:15:51

is their attempt to basically show how

1:15:53

close she is with the Proctors and how

1:15:55

I guess the statement that Proctor took of

1:15:58

hers couldn't be trusted. So the defense. The

1:16:00

defense argued vociferously over whether or not

1:16:02

Julie's description of her conversations as quote,

1:16:04

rarely with Courtney was correct. They're trying

1:16:07

to show how close Courtney and Julie

1:16:09

are and Julie's like, yeah, I mean,

1:16:11

I rarely text her. Julie

1:16:14

said she didn't recall specific conversations

1:16:16

with Courtney and the defense also

1:16:18

notes that there are calls with

1:16:20

Trooper Proctor on his personal cell

1:16:22

phone. Now on redirect, Julie

1:16:24

said the six phone calls that she exchanged

1:16:26

with Proctor over that period

1:16:28

are less than she typically have with

1:16:30

close friends. She's just a very prolific

1:16:32

caller apparently. So she's like, yeah, 67

1:16:35

is the number, but I actually call

1:16:37

my friends way more than that. So

1:16:39

67 is not a lot for me.

1:16:42

She also spoke to Michael Proctor, the

1:16:44

lead investigators we've said on his personal

1:16:46

phone, but she did not recall the

1:16:48

details of that conversation. Julie confirmed for

1:16:50

the defense that she never saw fights

1:16:53

or tension between John and Karen. And

1:16:55

she also said that they seem

1:16:57

to be perfectly fine at the

1:16:59

bar that night and that Karen didn't

1:17:01

seem intoxicated. Julie testified that the police

1:17:03

searched her phone but returned it

1:17:05

to her rather than keeping it. So

1:17:08

really quick about Julie, if

1:17:10

she is part of this conspiracy or

1:17:13

she's covering for her son, who part

1:17:16

of the conspiracy to attack, you would

1:17:18

think she would want to

1:17:20

say things that help

1:17:22

the prosecution's theory. You would think she'd say,

1:17:24

yeah, Karen was lit up that night. She

1:17:26

had so many vodka tonics. She was drunk

1:17:28

out of her mind. She was driving all

1:17:31

over the place and it was super irresponsible.

1:17:33

Or I saw them, John and

1:17:35

Karen fighting and boy were things he did,

1:17:37

I just wanted to get out of there

1:17:39

because then that would support Karen being the

1:17:42

perpetrator. But instead she's saying things that are

1:17:44

not great for that story.

1:17:46

She's saying, nope, Karen didn't seem intoxicated.

1:17:48

They didn't seem like they were fighting.

1:17:50

Everything seemed good. So it's

1:17:53

interesting because if she is part of

1:17:55

the conspiracy or conspiracy adjacent or

1:17:57

wanting to cover for her, the husband or...

1:18:00

son after the fact, you would

1:18:02

think that her testimony would actually be more in

1:18:04

the prosecution camp than it actually is. And

1:18:07

look, you can say, well, you

1:18:09

know, everybody makes mistakes. They didn't think about that.

1:18:11

They didn't think about that part. But

1:18:14

once again, this is conspiracy where they

1:18:16

thought about planning the broken cocktail glass

1:18:18

and the drink straw. You

1:18:20

would think the very first thing they would say is,

1:18:23

we should tell everybody that her and John were

1:18:25

fighting. You think that would be the first thing

1:18:27

you'd think about, especially since John and Karen did

1:18:30

fight. Everybody knew that. And we're going to hear

1:18:32

testimony about that later. You think they'd say, well,

1:18:34

you know, they looked friendly, but Karen

1:18:37

took me aside and said, I've really been fighting

1:18:39

with John a lot. Or John, you know, he

1:18:41

said, Hey, you know, I'm trying to put on

1:18:43

a good face, but man, I'm so ready to

1:18:45

leave her. It'd be so easy to say something

1:18:47

like that. And no one could disprove it because

1:18:49

John's dead and Karen's the defendant. They

1:18:52

don't do that. And repeatedly you're going to

1:18:54

see these folks who are supposed to be the

1:18:56

masterminds of this conspiracy give

1:18:59

evidence that is not helpful to the

1:19:01

prosecution when it would be so easy.

1:19:03

Like you think she's lying about whether

1:19:05

or not 67 phone

1:19:07

calls is a lot or not. You

1:19:09

think people are lying about whether or

1:19:12

not their friends, close friends, acquaintances, you

1:19:14

think they're lying about that, but they're not lying about whether

1:19:16

or not John and Karen were happy that

1:19:18

night. I mean, that would seem to be something you'd

1:19:20

lie about, but they don't. And

1:19:23

that is sort of a, maybe they're

1:19:25

just, it's like that scene in the princess

1:19:27

bride where the guy

1:19:29

with the Iocane powder and

1:19:31

he's like, you put it in my

1:19:34

glass to keep it as far away from you. But you

1:19:36

know that I would think you'd put it in your glass

1:19:38

to put it far away from me. So you put it

1:19:40

in your glass, but you would know a clever man would

1:19:42

know you'd put it in your glass to confuse me. So

1:19:44

it's in my glass or whatever. Like it's like that there,

1:19:46

the conspiracy, they have to be so they're

1:19:48

thinking so far ahead of the rest of

1:19:51

us that they know actually will bolster the

1:19:53

conspiracy to say that they were perfectly happy

1:19:55

that night because then no one will think

1:19:57

that we're involved. Maybe. I

1:20:00

know that defense kind of harp on the fact that

1:20:02

she's so close to the proctors that she speaks

1:20:05

to Michael Proctor on his personal self. Here's

1:20:07

just a reality, unfortunately, because remember what I

1:20:09

said earlier about the Supreme Court noting that

1:20:11

your cell phones are an extension of your

1:20:14

very self. When you work, you

1:20:16

have a work phone and you have a personal phone,

1:20:18

probably, you know, if you live

1:20:20

in this day and age, many of us,

1:20:22

not just law enforcement, have a work phone

1:20:24

and a personal phone. And oftentimes,

1:20:27

they get mixed, right? Like,

1:20:29

I've definitely called Brett before,

1:20:32

and we're talking about something else because we're friends

1:20:34

and have each other's personal phone numbers that when

1:20:36

we were both at the prosecutor's office, I'd be

1:20:39

like, oh, by the way, did so-and-so ever bring

1:20:41

you the case file? I'm not going to hang

1:20:43

up and pick up my other phone. It's just

1:20:45

the way because your investigation is your life, right?

1:20:47

And because of that, by the way, most

1:20:50

governments have evolved now recognizing that it's almost

1:20:52

impossible to keep people's personal phones from being

1:20:54

in the workplace because most people don't have

1:20:56

a lock box unless you work in a

1:20:58

skiff where no phones are allowed, where you

1:21:00

can't bring in any of your personal devices

1:21:02

because that's how we, like, live and that's

1:21:04

how we communicate with our schools and our

1:21:06

kids and our doctors and all those things,

1:21:09

that they just say, okay, well, if you

1:21:11

communicate with your personal phone, that's just part

1:21:13

of discovery now. So, like, if you have

1:21:15

text messages on your personal phone, that's just

1:21:17

part of discovery. So, it's not

1:21:19

like there's a hard no-no for using

1:21:22

your personal phone. It's not best practices.

1:21:24

It absolutely happens. And

1:21:27

what you do is that if you

1:21:29

create records on your personal device, that is

1:21:31

part of discovery, which should make

1:21:33

you not want to use your personal phone. But again,

1:21:35

that in and of itself is not, like, first

1:21:38

of all, unheard of, nor does

1:21:40

it automatically show anything untoward. Yeah.

1:21:42

I mean, it's funny because it's

1:21:45

not like his government phone is

1:21:47

recording the calls. Like, whether

1:21:49

he called her on his government phone or his

1:21:51

personal phone, it's still going to show up

1:21:53

and you're still not going to know what they say. My

1:21:56

government phone, the number has basically

1:21:58

been sold to every... telemarketer in

1:22:00

the world. So it's worthless. I

1:22:03

don't use it for anything. I use them on personal phone

1:22:05

for basically everything. And I'll say every agent who I've got

1:22:07

in my phone, I've got their work cell phone and I've

1:22:09

got their personal cell phone. So I get

1:22:11

while the defense is saying it because it's like, oh, you're

1:22:13

being shady. Like it'd be one thing. Sending

1:22:16

emails to your personal email is a

1:22:18

little bit shadier because then it is

1:22:20

your sort of feels like you're dodging

1:22:22

the record collection thing. But

1:22:25

the cell phone thing to me doesn't

1:22:27

feel that significant. So once again, it's

1:22:29

just, she knew his personal

1:22:31

phone. She felt comfortable calling on his personal

1:22:34

phone that shows how close they were. It

1:22:36

speaks to the connections,

1:22:38

which are real and are a

1:22:40

fact. Everybody is very connected in this

1:22:43

case. Everybody knows everybody. It's

1:22:45

weird to have this small a town

1:22:47

like 15 miles from Boston, right? But

1:22:50

that's the way it is. Well, I feel like we got

1:22:52

through a lot today. We're about to get into, you

1:22:55

know, even more people. We added two people to

1:22:57

the conspiracy list. I think you have to add

1:23:00

both Julie and Chris, the conspiracy

1:23:02

theory at least is paused by

1:23:04

the defense. I'm willing to accept

1:23:06

that Chris and Julie are not

1:23:08

part of the conspiracy if

1:23:10

you think the defense is off base, but at least

1:23:12

what they're presenting, we're going to have to put them

1:23:14

in the conspiracy box for now.

1:23:16

And we're going to just keep talking about

1:23:18

folks who are either completely

1:23:21

innocent bystanders who lost a close

1:23:23

friend and are still devastated by

1:23:25

that or are

1:23:27

his killers and conspirators

1:23:30

and accessories after the fact, because

1:23:32

basically everyone who was at that party,

1:23:35

we're going to talk about over probably

1:23:37

in the next episode, maybe a little bit

1:23:39

longer, but I think we'll get through everybody

1:23:41

who was there that night. And then we're

1:23:43

going to pull back again. This

1:23:46

is sort of an interesting way they've done this. They

1:23:48

start with the crime. They step back a

1:23:50

day to the night before, and then

1:23:52

we're going to go all the way back to

1:23:54

Aruba. We're going to talk about what happened there.

1:23:56

Then eventually we're going to start getting into the

1:23:59

boring stuff, which Which is actually pretty interesting in

1:24:01

this case, the forensics, the telematics,

1:24:03

the cell phone data, all

1:24:05

of that. Eventually we get to Trooper Proctor who

1:24:08

is sort of the barn

1:24:10

burner witness who's

1:24:12

going to have so much

1:24:14

bad. I mean, honestly, y'all can say

1:24:17

if you want to that these defense attorneys are great.

1:24:20

Maybe they are. If Karen Reed is acquitted,

1:24:22

it will not be because of the conspiracy theory in

1:24:24

my mind. It will be because of Trooper Proctor. It

1:24:27

will be because of what Proctor did and

1:24:29

jurors who just say to themselves, if

1:24:31

that guy is involved in this case, I can't trust anything about

1:24:33

this case. I'm not going to convict. That's

1:24:36

my thought. So, spoiler alert, when we get to him,

1:24:38

it's going to be important. That will probably be seven

1:24:40

or eight episodes from now. So just be ready. I

1:24:42

thought you were going to say he's going to take

1:24:44

seven to eight episodes. I was like, yes, that was

1:24:46

about right. You may. Yeah,

1:24:48

this is a long one. I admit that. We're

1:24:51

going to figure that out later on. I

1:24:53

don't want this to take the rest of the year.

1:24:55

Take you guys' t-shirts. I say you survived. Eventually, this

1:24:58

case is going to end, at which point we'll probably

1:25:00

start doing at least two episodes a week. But for

1:25:02

now, we're walking through this with you. And

1:25:05

who knows? It may never end. It

1:25:07

may go on forever. It may be like the

1:25:09

Young Thug trial where the prosecutor today apparently said,

1:25:11

going to need another half a year or more

1:25:14

to put on their case. And the judge was like, well,

1:25:17

then we're starting to do trial on Saturdays

1:25:19

and Sundays. At that case, we're not doing

1:25:21

that case because I don't know what's

1:25:23

going on in it, but it's just, I'm not going to watch.

1:25:25

I'm not going to watch a year of trial. I'm just not

1:25:27

going to do it. If y'all want to talk about it, we'll

1:25:30

talk about it on the legal briefs or something in 30 minutes,

1:25:32

but we're not doing the whole case. Okay,

1:25:34

Alice, we haven't done many questions. Do you

1:25:36

want to do a question? Real fast. I

1:25:38

know we've gone long, but let's do a question. We're

1:25:40

only recording like five times this week. This

1:25:43

is an interesting question. This is from

1:25:46

Jersey Boys Girl Toaster, which I

1:25:48

don't know what that means. Somebody has so

1:25:50

many emails to explain that. So

1:25:52

Jersey Boys Girl Toaster wants

1:25:55

to know if you were

1:25:57

the prosecutors for Casey Anthony, what

1:25:59

would you have done? to increase the possibility

1:26:01

of a conviction if even on a lesser

1:26:04

charge." So that's a great

1:26:06

question. I don't know that there was anything you could

1:26:08

do. You could have not

1:26:11

gone for first degree murder. You know,

1:26:13

maybe if you just didn't even charge that

1:26:16

and you just charged some sort of negligent

1:26:18

homicide, really focused on how

1:26:20

she just wasn't present,

1:26:23

wasn't there, made up the babysitter, like all that

1:26:25

sort of stuff, maybe you could have got there.

1:26:27

But that's a tough one to second guess.

1:26:30

That was just a tough, that was just a tough, the

1:26:33

outcome was just tough in that whole thing. I

1:26:35

don't know that I could have done anything better.

1:26:37

You had really difficult, you had a really difficult

1:26:39

defendant and you had really difficult witnesses and

1:26:42

her ever-changing story. So

1:26:44

it was a tough case. Okay,

1:26:46

one more. It's funny how many

1:26:48

people ask us about work-life balance. You

1:26:51

can tell that's something that's really on people's minds.

1:26:53

Maybe because we complain too much about it. Maybe.

1:26:55

Okay. This is from MG6784. You're obviously an Alabama

1:26:58

fan, Raul

1:27:04

Todd. Who is your most hated rival and

1:27:06

why is it Tennessee? But

1:27:08

the reason it's Tennessee is because

1:27:10

unlike other teams we play who like

1:27:12

to put on airs, Tennessee

1:27:15

actually is a great team with a

1:27:17

great tradition with a lot of success

1:27:19

in SEC. So it's

1:27:21

so much more meaningful when we

1:27:23

beat them. Whereas when we beat

1:27:25

other teams, it's just like, I'm glad I don't

1:27:27

have to listen to those people for a year. So

1:27:30

that's why it's Tennessee. What do you think, Alice? What are your thoughts

1:27:32

on that? I just like

1:27:34

to egg on Brett because he's

1:27:37

come so far in his evolution

1:27:40

of an SEC fan, or

1:27:42

a Bama fan really, that he used to tell

1:27:44

me he would fall into deep bouts of depression

1:27:47

when Bama would lose and he doesn't fall into

1:27:49

utter depression now. So I'm just proud of him.

1:27:51

And as a result, I don't feel so bad

1:27:53

about just ribbing him all

1:27:55

the time about anyone that could get under his

1:27:58

skin. That's not Bama. Thank you, Alice. I

1:28:00

appreciate that. I also buy his kids Auburn

1:28:03

themed clothes all the time. Straight in the trash. All the

1:28:05

time. Straight in the trash. Straight

1:28:07

in the trash. Okay. So

1:28:09

we know you guys have lots of thoughts

1:28:11

on this. We've already heard from you a

1:28:13

lot about those thoughts, even though

1:28:16

we've only released one episode publicly. You've

1:28:19

already decided exactly what's going to happen. Exactly

1:28:21

what we're going to say, which maybe you're right. Who

1:28:23

knows? We'll see. But we

1:28:25

want to hear more from you. Email

1:28:28

prosecutors pod@gmail.com at prosecutors pod for all

1:28:30

your social media. Follow

1:28:32

us on YouTube. Watch these videos

1:28:35

on YouTube. Join Patreon

1:28:37

if you want these episodes early and ad

1:28:39

free while people in the public have heard

1:28:41

one Karen Reed episode patrons will listen to

1:28:43

four. So that's what you can get. We

1:28:45

love seeing you guys and thank you to

1:28:48

all of you who join us to record

1:28:50

all these episodes. Y'all are fantastic. We love

1:28:52

every single one of you. Well we're going

1:28:54

to be doing this case for a while. You know what you're

1:28:56

going to be talking about next week. More

1:28:58

Karen Reed. We know you're excited. We're

1:29:01

excited to cover it. All right.

1:29:03

We'll be back then. But until then, I'm

1:29:06

Brett. And I'm Alice. And

1:29:08

we are the prosecutors. Oh

1:29:32

just by the way. It's

1:29:34

just this has been a week of fun. The

1:29:37

AC did did break. So

1:29:40

it is hot in here if I start sweating. It's

1:29:42

why. Glistening. Glistening.

1:29:45

All right. Excuse me. You ready

1:29:48

to start. Oh yeah. I need a word for you.

1:29:52

Don't I look ready. You

1:29:55

look so ready. You've never been more

1:29:57

ready. Hello everyone.

1:30:00

Pleasure to see you all again. Should

1:30:03

I call you two? Awake.

1:30:06

Bury away. We'll

1:30:30

be right back. You

1:31:05

guys aren't even seeing like half the

1:31:07

recordings we're doing this week. Well

1:31:09

I get in trouble if I call you hot. Is

1:31:11

that like sexist? You

1:31:14

know what? We like making everyone lose their

1:31:16

minds so why not? Because it

1:31:18

literally is hot. It's so hot in here. It's

1:31:20

like 100 degrees outside. It's

1:32:08

summertime and with Pluto TV Summer of

1:32:10

Cinema, the streaming is easy. Stream hundreds

1:32:12

of free movies on all your favorite

1:32:14

devices all summer long. Chill out poolside

1:32:16

with Mission Impossible and Transformers. Or stay

1:32:18

cool inside watching Indiana Jones and the

1:32:20

Raiders of the Lost Ark, Titanic or

1:32:22

the Wolf of Wall Street. No matter

1:32:24

your vibe, download the Pluto TV app

1:32:27

to spend summer doing what you love.

1:32:29

Watching endless movies. Tell me that's not

1:32:31

the deal of the summer. Summer

1:32:33

of Cinema on Pluto TV. Stream now.

1:32:35

Stream now. They never. Pay never.