This is Hidden Killers Week in review. I look back at the most prolific stories of the week.

This is the Hidden Killers podcast with Tony Bruske and continuing coverage of the case against

Karen Reid. When the truth feels blurred under inches of snow and a mountain of doubt, the courtroom

becomes the only place left to dig.

In the case of Karen Reed, the prosecution claims this is a clear-cut vehicular homicide,

maybe even second-degree murder, that she hit Boston police officer John O'Keefe

with her SUV in a drunken haze or rage, depending on which charges you want to believe, and left

him to die.

The defense on the other side argues that she's not just innocent.

She's the fall girl in a cover-up orchestrated to protect those inside that house.

Two drastically different stories. One, a shattered tail light. No camera rolling,

but it all went down. Today on Hidden Killers, we're joined by former prosecutor and criminal

defense attorney Eric Fannis to break down how the case is being built and unbuilt in real time.

Eric, let's start with the heart of all of this.

The case hinges not on someone seeing what happened, but on how jurors interpret what

Karen Reid may have said, felt, or even implied in a moment of crisis.

As a legal expert here, how dangerous is it when a case leans more on emotional interference

than direct evidence? And is that ever enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yeah, Tony, in nearly every case, the jury is going to be focused on what the defendant did,

what the defendant said, what the defendant's demure was,

because they believe that that will give them some insight into what the defendant knows in

terms of what played out. That being said, we've always got to be cautious when a jury is

...