Person Colin Albert Trial 1← All People
🗣️ Witness

Colin Albert

Trial 1

Testimony Impact

Colin Albert is the nephew of Brian Albert, at whose Canton home John O'Keefe's body was found on January 29, 2022. He testified that he was at 34 Fairview Road that night for his cousin's birthday party, departing around 12:10 a.m. — corroborated by text messages with Allie McCabe — and briefly crossed paths with Brian and Nicole Albert arriving home as he left. His testimony spans five proceedings across two trial days, beginning with direct examination establishing his timeline and extending through cross, redirect, recross, and re-redirect as the defense challenged his credibility on multiple fronts.

Notable Quotes From The Record

“From what I remember — my cousin Brian, Emily Fabiano, Sarah Levinson, and Kathryn Doody. From what I remember that night.”

Identifies who was present at 34 Fairview when he arrived, establishing the guest list during his visit.

“At 11:54 I texted Allie and said 'Can you get me now.' ... And then at 12:10 a.m. Allie wrote 'Here.' And at 12:10 a.m. I wrote back 'Okay, I'm coming.'”

Text message evidence corroborating his departure timeline from 34 Fairview Road.

“As I was walking out, I saw my Uncle Brian and my Aunt Nicole.”

Places Brian and Nicole Albert arriving home at approximately 12:10 a.m., a key timeline marker for the night's events.

“I just said I'm going home, my mom wants me home, I love you guys, bye.”

Describes his brief exchange with Brian and Nicole Albert as they crossed paths at the door — he leaving, they arriving.

“We text on other platforms too — I'd say other apps.”

Albert's explanation for the month-long gap in text messages with Allie McCabe after the incident, leading Jackson to raise Snapchat's auto-delete function.

“I was at a party — a house party, my senior year — and I remember it being icy out, and it was like a steep hill of a driveway, and I was walking up the driveway and I slipped, and I tried to catch myself, but I had something in my left hand, so I tried to brace myself with my right hand and I ended up sliding a little bit down the driveway.”

Albert's explanation for the injured knuckles visible in the Fenway Johnny's photo — Jackson challenges this by noting only the top of the knuckles were injured, consistent with punching rather than bracing a fall.

“I said 'I will [expletive] you up.'”

Albert admits the content of his threatening videos, undermining his claim of never being in fights and having no violent tendencies.

“It's a club hockey team.”

Identifies 'Advantage' as a hockey team, reframing the threatening videos as a sports rivalry dispute rather than evidence of general violent tendencies

“Never.”

Albert's flat denial to each question about threatening O'Keefe or having any hostile exchange with him

“Yes.”

Albert admits the videos depicted threats of physical violence, undermining his claim of never having been in a fight

“Maybe five, six times”

Minimizes relationship with lead investigator Trooper Proctor, countering defense implication of close ties

“Call, text, Snapchat, other apps, things like that”

Provides alternative explanation for the month-long iMessage gap with McCabe — multiple platforms, not deliberate evidence avoidance

“it was the girls in our friend group. A couple of the girls in our friend group hung out with them a few times, so like all my guy friends got a little salty about it, so that's why we kind of sent videos back and forth”

Frames threatening videos as trivial teenage drama over girls, not evidence of violent character

“people on Twitter, Instagram, social media were just coming at my family, calling us murderers, harassing us, showing up to our doorsteps, our sports games. I mean, we couldn't leave the house without people taking pictures of us”

Introduces online harassment narrative, potentially generating jury sympathy and explaining Albert's defensiveness on the stand

“Never. Nothing.”

Final emphatic denial of seeing O'Keefe at 34 Fairview Road — prosecution's core point to leave with the jury

“She doesn't have to be a sole dog bite expert to be an expert in dog bites... she just has to have that level of knowledge, that level of skill, that level of expertise that's beyond that of the average lay person.”

Defense's legal standard argument — expert qualification threshold is above lay knowledge, not exclusive specialization

Key Moments

Locations Touched By This Testimony

Appearances (5)