This is Hidden Killers Week in review.

I look back at the most prolific stories of the week.

This is Hidden Killers with Tony Brewski.

You've ever watched a trial and thought, wait, what just happened?

And why is the judge letting that fly?

Well, then welcome to the Karen Reed circus. It's a case, but it's more of a circus,

where legal strategy and courtroom chess are happening in full public view. Just days before

opening statements in her second trial, the judge handed down rulings that could shift the

entire narrative. The defense can now officially point the finger at others, but not everyone.

The prosecution is trying to block some of the defense's biggest talking points from trial

one. And the lead investigator, well, yeah, he's been fired, but he's still going to testify.

It's not just a trial. It's starting to look like the full-blown credibility war.

Eric Fatt is joining us.

Eric, here's the table setter in a case where the same evidence is being regarded with

totally different framing.

How much does legal strategy actually change the verdict odds here?

Can relitigating the case with tighter rules and sharper tactics lead to a totally

different outcome when the facts are, you know, essentially still the same?

It can, Tony. You know, we're dealing with the same core set of facts. That's not going to change.

But we have a new prosecutor. We have potentially new experts. We have limitations on defenses. But we have a new prosecutor, we have potentially new experts, we have

limitations on defenses, and we have a bunch of public statements the defendant has made since

the last mistrial. And you've better believe that those things could turn the tables in this case

...