This is a special report from True Crime Today and the Hidden Killers podcast.

Karen Reid, back in court again today.

And we're going to take you right there for all of the coverage of what's going on in that courtroom.

And the follow-ups with Judge Beverlyly canone let's go there right now

how they will try to portray these unsubstantiated facts at trial they'll tell a story it will

divert the jury's attention so they're not entitled to it not entitled to it time modern tradition yes

but their limitations so san diego was very clear about the limitations.

This latitude is not unbounding.

Each of these limitations recognizes the admission of feeble third-party covered evidence

poses a risk of unfair prejudice to the Commonwealth.

I'm not whining.

The Commonwealth should not be unfairly prejudiced. Theining, the Commonwealth should not be unfairly

prejudice. The people of the Commonwealth should not be unfairly prejudice. Because it is

inevitably, it diverts jurors' attention away from the defendant on trial and onto the

third party. Essentially, it requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

the third party culprit did not commit the crime

if there was evidence of third-party culprit the defendant should be entitled to use it in this case there is not

there is no motive there is no motive to suggest that one person was pining although the text messages don't show that, they both stopped corresponding with each other days before.

To suggest that Mr. Albert is friends with Mr. Higgins and therefore he is bootstrapped into a conspiracy to kill with no evidence.

Certainly the defense can infer certain facts like

getting rid of the SIM card in a way they want, and I don't begrudge that at all. There's

different interpretations to what I understand that. This was heavily considered in the federal

...