KAREN: THE RETRIAL - Podcast Rankings and reviews

…and my initial impression was that she was guilty because the defense’s theory of conspiracy seemed ludicrous UNTIL I watched the trial. I’m only two episodes in, as that’s all that’s been posted as of my review, but you left out some key details with the timeline you’ve given so far. For example - like you said, the lead investigator, Proctor, just hours into the investigation, texted his friends, family, and fellow officers “this girl isn’t going to slide”, showing he had already drawn a conclusion as soon as the investigation began. But you left out that he also said, as he was going thru her phone, which he confiscated without a warrant, that “she is hot”, “no nudes yet”, “she is a whack job” and a “f-ing c—t” and then made fun of her M.S. and Colostomy bag and ended with “I hope she kills herself”. He also pointed out that the owner of the house, Brian Albert, won’t get into any trouble, as he is a fellow cop and his wife is going to “owe him a gift” for steering the investigation another direction. Also, even if they claim they didn’t go inside because they had no reason to believe it was a homicide yet, it’s strange that Brian, a first responder and Boston cop couldn’t be bothered to come outside to see what the commotion was with the screaming, crying, and flashing lights of police cars and an ambulance were on his front yard. Moreover, when he was being investigated, Proctor said that he didn’t know anyone involved in the house or the case, yet it turns out he was very close to all of them, and had been for years. At the very least, he should have stepped down as there was a serious conflict of interest. These things are just the tip of the ice berg, and I hope you are more thorough of your coverage on the prosecution AND defenses side and let the listeners draw their own conclusions.

This tells the story mostly from Karen’s/her lawyer’s POV, but not much from the prosecution’s. I understand why they did that - the defense is the whole reason this case is famous, and the controversy is what is driving clicks. And on one hand, it’s refreshing to see the defense’s take, because true crime podcasts are almost exclusively from the prosecution’s POV (as is true crime media in general). But I still would have liked to hear more from the prosecution.

If I am ever charged with murder though, I need a lawyer like Karen’s. I wonder if he’ll be able to do it again at the second trial now that the prosecution has seen his playbook. I do wonder why she’s being charged with murder - how could they possibly prove that? Overall I lean towards she hit him, whether accidentally or not, and I definitely don’t think there was some conspiracy inside the house, but I’m so surprised there’s no video anywhere. I thought the burbs all had video everywhere now.

I liked the presentation of the sound bytes and multiple perspectives. I don’t think that they approached it in a biased way and introduced people from both sides that poke major holes into the investigation and also into Karen. This is the third podcast I’ve listened to cover it and they left out evidence I’ve heard in other podcasts that was present but it seems like they might be doing more episodes. Overall, I think she hit her boyfriend with her car in a drunken rage and shoddy police work has created the opportunity for her to get away with it.

Watch the first trial. Keep in mind that the Judge would not allow the jury to know that FBI has been investigating the DA’s office for corruption. The FBI had their own grand jury and uncovered a lot of police misconduct. The FBI hired a forensics team and turned over their findings to both legal teams. Unequivocally, the FBI concluded that car never hit JO. His injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a car.

If you were on trial, set aside your feelings of guilt or innocence. Ask yourself: is she getting a fair trial, or is she being unfairly targeted for blame?

I love love love true crime podcasts. I don't expect them to be big media productions or to have music or other shenanigans. However, this podcast was thrown together. It is so poorly produced, as voices overlap and clips clash. Moreover, it might as well be named Karen Read Didn't Do It. It's so ridiculously biased that I cannot even gather facts. Don't bother and wait for a better crafted podcast and actually presents both sides to allow you to draw a conclusion. Any case can be made to look this way when so much is omitted.

As other reviewers have noted, this podcast feels one-sided. But for anyone who’s done even a modicum of research into this case (e.g. just watched the trial), it’s so much worse than that. The host often says things as though they are obvious, when the clips played to support the assertions actually go the complete opposite direction. Key facts and testimony are left out. Words are mispronounced. So many words. So many times. In the scripted portions—who is editing this? I (perhaps foolishly) expected so much better of Wondery so I kept listening, waiting for some sort of clarification or improvement. Don’t make the same mistake. This is beyond worthless—actually harmful.