Speaker 1: Hi, guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
Speaker 1: be your host Emily Simpson and my co host Shane.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to say, just Shane, Shane, just Shane. All right.
Speaker 1: Our last episode we did we went through a little
Speaker 1: bit of the Karen Reid trial, but we also got
Speaker 1: to the closing arguments and the verdict. However, I thought
Speaker 1: it was important at the top of this episode just
Speaker 1: to talk a little bit about the Alberts and mccabes
Speaker 1: because they decided to give interviews right after the verdict
Speaker 1: came out. So let's talk about who was interviewed now.
Speaker 1: Brian Albert, who was the one who owned the home
Speaker 1: and he was a Boston police officer where John O'Keeffe
Speaker 1: was found dead outside of his home, His wife Nicole,
Speaker 1: his brother Chris, as well as his sister in law,
Speaker 1: who we all know is Jen McCabe, the one who
Speaker 1: testified in court, and her husband Matt All spoke to
Speaker 1: ABC News in an interview which was released on Friday,
Speaker 1: June twentieth. This was two days after Karen Reid was acquitted.
Speaker 1: All five were witnesses at Reed's first trial. However, when
Speaker 1: they did the reach trial. Jennifer McCabe was the only
Speaker 1: one who testified at the retrial. Now, I was thinking
Speaker 1: about this, and I assume the prosecution puts on their
Speaker 1: on their case and they were like, Okay, we don't
Speaker 1: need any of you to testify again because that did
Speaker 1: not work the first time around. So Jen McCabe was
Speaker 1: the only one who actually testified for the prosecution.
Speaker 2: You mean you think that they had her testify and
Speaker 2: then after it was a bad testimony for them, then
Speaker 2: they decided not to have anyone else.
Speaker 1: No, I think all of these people that were all
Speaker 1: within the house all testified in the first trial, and
Speaker 1: then when the retrial came along.
Speaker 2: Okay, so even before the second trial, they realized like,
Speaker 2: this is not a good idea.
Speaker 1: I think they were like, none of they're not credible,
Speaker 1: and we're just not going to put them on. So
Speaker 1: Jen McCabe, who is the who is the sister in
Speaker 1: law of Brian Albert who owns the home, is the
Speaker 1: only one who testified at the retrial. All right, So
Speaker 1: let's just go over a little bit of what they did.
Speaker 1: The families have been accused by Reid and her defense
Speaker 1: lawyers to be the ones who were responsible for John
Speaker 1: O'Keeffe's death. That was the That was their defense was
Speaker 1: that there was a conspiracy and that these police officers
Speaker 1: all conspired together that something happened to John within the home,
Speaker 1: and then that they put the body out on the lawn.
Speaker 1: They blame Karen Read for it. But in the interview,
Speaker 1: Brian Albert describes the theory as quote preposterous and silly.
Speaker 1: You do realize for this conspiracy to be true, it
Speaker 1: would take thirty to fifty people to be in on it.
Speaker 1: This is what Albert told Matt Gutman, who is the interviewer.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how people buy this.
Speaker 2: You're gonna price speak to it, but I don't know
Speaker 2: if I agree with it takes thirty to whatever people
Speaker 2: to be in on it.
Speaker 1: So I had the same question. I remember when this
Speaker 1: trial was going on, initially thinking if this is a
Speaker 1: conspiracy and that's the defense's play, it really is astonishing
Speaker 1: to me that someone has not come forward or spoken
Speaker 1: out or broke this pack that they have.
Speaker 2: It's not surprising to me. It happens a lot. If
Speaker 2: there's like a drug party and someone dies, there's all
Speaker 2: these people at the party house and people are like,
Speaker 2: I'm staying out of it, walking away.
Speaker 1: Well, it makes me not like.
Speaker 2: Their hands are dirty per se, they're just staying away
Speaker 2: from it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it makes me also think about pity. Yeah
Speaker 1: and his freak offs. I mean, these have been going on.
Speaker 2: For years, years, and those are people that don't even
Speaker 2: benefit from the freak cops. They're just like security guard, janitors,
Speaker 2: you know, pairman, Yeah, others delivering the baby celebrities.
Speaker 1: So the fact that no one was talking about these
Speaker 1: freak offs and there were so many people involved and
Speaker 1: it went on for years and years and years, goes to.
Speaker 2: Show you that you can have It's like you see
Speaker 2: an accident, does everyone pull over and try to say,
Speaker 2: I'm a waitness, I can help out. No, A lot
Speaker 2: of people just think I gotta go to work and
Speaker 2: these drive.
Speaker 1: Off, all right. So, Brian Albert also addressed one of
Speaker 1: the major criticisms Reid's defense had on his conduct of
Speaker 1: the morning of January twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. Despite
Speaker 1: being a fellow Boston Police officer and a trained first responder,
Speaker 1: Albert never left his home, which is one of the
Speaker 1: things that we talked about when we did earlier episodes,
Speaker 1: was how bizarre it is that he is a police officer.
Speaker 1: He's inside this home, there's a body found dead on
Speaker 1: his lawn. He's a first responder. It's a fellow police officer,
Speaker 1: and he never leaves his home to find out what happened,
Speaker 1: to ask to inquire, and police never went inside his I'm.
Speaker 2: Sure when he pulls someone over for a moving violation,
Speaker 2: he's very detail oriented, takes notes, yeah, checks all the paperwork,
Speaker 2: completes the form for the ticket. But then with this
Speaker 2: dead body on his lawn, and he's.
Speaker 1: Like, he doesn't want it, he's not interested.
Speaker 2: No, he's got to get his floor as repaired.
Speaker 1: So during this interview, Brian Albert says, what am I
Speaker 1: supposed to do? Run out front in my underwear and
Speaker 1: start running yellow tape around the fire hydrant. Yes, I'm
Speaker 1: not a Canton police officer. I'm a Boston police officer.
Speaker 1: I was just woken up out of a cold sleep
Speaker 1: from hanging out the night before. By the time I
Speaker 1: came downstairs, the police were already in my house. John
Speaker 1: was already gone, and there was nobody to save. First
Speaker 1: of all, he says in the interview, the police were
Speaker 1: already in my house.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there's police. No, but please live in that house.
Speaker 2: He is the police, isn't he.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but he's referring to the police that we're investigating,
Speaker 1: and that's not true. I feel like this is just.
Speaker 2: Well, if it is true, then it's what information did
Speaker 2: they gather by being inside the house?
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's confirmed that there were no No
Speaker 1: one went in the house.
Speaker 2: Is saying that because he's.
Speaker 1: A liar, because I don't, because I think he's making
Speaker 1: up what happened that day, because there's in my opinion,
Speaker 1: allegedly there was something nefarious that went on in that house,
Speaker 1: and that there's a cover up.
Speaker 2: Everyone's opinion this right, So now that.
Speaker 1: He's giving first of all, it probably wasn't a great
Speaker 1: idea for them to give an interview.
Speaker 2: They probably would you give an interview, I think.
Speaker 1: Because people think they're going to change people's minds that
Speaker 1: they're if they speak to it, and they and they
Speaker 1: and they're convincing enough in their own head that they're
Speaker 1: going to convince other people. I think all it did
Speaker 1: was make them look more guilty. He says, I would
Speaker 1: have taken a bullet for John O'Keeffe because he was
Speaker 1: a fellow cop.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I'm not going to go out there. But
Speaker 2: I'm not going to go out there my body and
Speaker 2: see if he's alive or dead.
Speaker 1: Or I'll take a bullet. But I'm not going to
Speaker 1: go out there with manderwear and run yellow tail.
Speaker 2: And I won't testify and I won't admit for any wrongdoing,
Speaker 2: but I'll take a bullet.
Speaker 1: And I would take a bullet Matt McCabe.
Speaker 2: Because it's sorry. That's because it's easy to say that.
Speaker 2: People say that all the time that they'll they'll do anything.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's easy to say that or say I'll
Speaker 2: lay down my life or I'll give my life. But
Speaker 2: but when you're actually in the position, will he take
Speaker 2: a bullet?
Speaker 1: No, doubt it, No, absolutely not.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't I take a bullet from my friends?
Speaker 1: Yeah no, probably not. No, you probably would take a
Speaker 1: bullet for me. Like what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Son, who's firing? And what you did.
Speaker 1: Matt McCabe said the group stayed silent because they wanted
Speaker 1: to let the court do its job. We took what
Speaker 1: we thought was the high road, he said. Brian Albert
Speaker 1: adds the criminal justice system has led us down at
Speaker 1: every turn. Yesterday when Karen was acquitted, was the final letdown.
Speaker 1: No one protects you, and it's very very sad. Think
Speaker 1: long and hard before you're a witness in a case,
Speaker 1: added his wife Nicole. She said she was just sad
Speaker 1: for John's family. Yeah, and I mean we've talked about that.
Speaker 1: We're all sad for John O'Keefe's family. The real travesty
Speaker 1: is that there's no closure in this case, and they
Speaker 1: still have the civil lawsuit going on. But yep, we'll
Speaker 1: see what happens with that. The Oke family has not issued.
Speaker 2: A public A civil lawsuit might reveal more information, right,
Speaker 2: because some things might be more admissible in a civil case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we need to dive into that. I have heard
Speaker 1: and I don't know if this is true, but it
Speaker 1: has to do also with Karen's behavior that night in
Speaker 1: the house when she couldn't find John because his daughter
Speaker 1: was in the house and she was fourteen, and there's
Speaker 1: something about her possibly being traumatized by the way Karen
Speaker 1: acted or so I think I.
Speaker 2: Think they'll be more to learn. Yeah, maybe still some
Speaker 2: more questions to be answered, but there'll be more to
Speaker 2: learn as a result of the civil case.
Speaker 1: So the Okey family has not issued to public statements
Speaker 1: since the verdict and did not speak to the press
Speaker 1: outside the courthouse. They are still suing read for John
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's death in a civil lawsuit. All right, let's move
Speaker 1: on to Sherry Peppini. I'm so excited to do this
Speaker 1: case because it is nuts and I love talking about
Speaker 1: nutty women because I like there's I am always intrigued
Speaker 1: by Shane's reaction.
Speaker 2: I don't know much about this case.
Speaker 1: I know you don't Cherry Peppini. First of all, there
Speaker 1: was a documentary I'm going to tell you if you
Speaker 1: guys drink, I would like sh First of all, let
Speaker 1: me tell you the order you need to go about
Speaker 1: watching this, because I feel like too many people who
Speaker 1: are now interested in the Sherry Peppini case are only
Speaker 1: watching the four part documentary that came out on Identity
Speaker 1: What is It ID Identification Discovery, which is the the
Speaker 1: most newly released interview that she did after serving time
Speaker 1: in prison. If you only watch that, I feel like
Speaker 1: you might be a little biased and a little jaded.
Speaker 1: So I would suggest that if you're interested in a
Speaker 1: full account of what happened, go and watch the Hulu
Speaker 1: documentary It's called a Perfect Wife, that is about what
Speaker 1: happened with this kidnapping and everything. It gives you a
Speaker 1: very deep background into her life and her husband and
Speaker 1: her kids and this whole kidnapping. Then watch the new
Speaker 1: four part interview that she does recently, because I feel
Speaker 1: like you have to put those two together to really
Speaker 1: have a full concept of everything.
Speaker 2: Perfect Wife, Well, I mean, I get why is it
Speaker 2: called perfect Wife?
Speaker 1: I think because that's the way she portrayed herself as
Speaker 1: like this perfect wife and mom and really in reality,
Speaker 1: she's insane. All right, Let's get into Sherry. Let's get
Speaker 1: into Sherry pep Beanie.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: Sharry is a California mother of two who's twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: disappearance and dramatic or sparked national attention, only to unravel
Speaker 1: years later as one of the most notorious kidnapping hoaxes
Speaker 1: in modern times. So this happened back in November two
Speaker 1: of twoenty and sixteen. Peppini is believed to have been
Speaker 1: kidnapped during an eleven AM jog. Her husband, Keith Peppini,
Speaker 1: says he last received a text from Sherry at ten
Speaker 1: thirty seven am asking if he planned to return home
Speaker 1: for lunch, but he claims he didn't see the text
Speaker 1: right away and responded back around one thirty pm. Keith
Speaker 1: reports her missing that evening after he comes home to
Speaker 1: find she isn't there and had not picked up the
Speaker 1: kids from daycare. He does find my iPhone and that
Speaker 1: led Keith to Sherry's phone and earbuds, which were found
Speaker 1: on the ground with strands of hair appearing as though
Speaker 1: there had been some type of struggle. Authorities and family
Speaker 1: members launch an intensive search and public awareness campaign. Now
Speaker 1: he starts doing a lot of interviews. Of course, what
Speaker 1: does everyone say when a wife disappears? They clearly please.
Speaker 2: Come home, please go.
Speaker 1: And when I watched his interviews, it kind of it
Speaker 1: reminded me of Scott Peterson when Lacey was missing and
Speaker 1: he did all the interviews about you know, like Marie,
Speaker 1: come back, please come back, bring my wife back. Although
Speaker 1: Scott Peterson is dead in the face, at least Keith
Speaker 1: Peppinie has I find him somewhat more believable. When I
Speaker 1: was watching his interviews, I felt as if I didn't think, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: he's the one.
Speaker 2: What state is this in?
Speaker 1: This is in northern California and reading. So Sherry Peppini
Speaker 1: disappears from November third to November twenty third, She's gone
Speaker 1: around twenty two days. Local, state, and federal law enforcement
Speaker 1: are involved in the missing person's case. I do know
Speaker 1: that Keith also requested that the FBI be involved. Someone
Speaker 1: told him that he should do that, and there is
Speaker 1: video of him during his interviews asking for the FBI
Speaker 1: to be involved. Social media and go fund me campaigns
Speaker 1: draw national attention. There was a GoFundMe that raised more
Speaker 1: than forty two thousand towards search efforts, and the Peppini
Speaker 1: family also offered a fifty thousand dollars reward for Sherry's
Speaker 1: safe return. He also made. Keith also made many emotional
Speaker 1: appearances on Good Morning America, ABC News, et cetera, describing
Speaker 1: his wife as a supermom and pleading for her safe return.
Speaker 2: That's that's sign of guilt right there.
Speaker 1: What the supermom? Yeah, well, he's not guilty. November twenty
Speaker 1: fourth is Thanksgiving Day. At four thirty am, Sherry is
Speaker 1: found in the middle of country Road seventeen and I
Speaker 1: five in Yolo County, Yolo. You only live once.
Speaker 2: It's not the last one in apathetic order, though it's
Speaker 2: not Yuma County, Yuma, it's a close one. It's a
Speaker 2: close second.
Speaker 1: It was near the Woodland area, about one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty miles south of where she first disappeared. She has
Speaker 1: found bruised and emaciated, with bindings and a brand on
Speaker 1: her shoulder that says Exodus. Her hair has also been cut.
Speaker 1: Was Exodus, Well, it's a Bible.
Speaker 2: Verse, I know, but like I don't know, Yeah, what
Speaker 2: was the significance of that?
Speaker 1: I don't know, not really anything, I don't think.
Speaker 2: Was it like a certain font or was it a
Speaker 2: certain like style that means some type of cult?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: We would have to ask Sherry that did tattoo. I'd
Speaker 2: be like, okay, whatever, But you said branded, it's different.
Speaker 1: It's branded. It was burned onto her.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's Sherry's story.
Speaker 1: She claims that she was captured by two Hispanic women
Speaker 1: and a dark suv while on her run. They took
Speaker 1: her to an unknown location, which she claims to have
Speaker 1: been drugged during the car ride, so she didn't know
Speaker 1: where she was. She said she was physically restrained, with
Speaker 1: her wrists and ankles chained and a bag over her
Speaker 1: head for the majority of the time. She said she
Speaker 1: was beaten repeatedly, often just for fun, by one of
Speaker 1: the women, who she referred to as the mean one.
Speaker 1: She claims she was starved, losing a significant amount of weight,
Speaker 1: reportedly fifteen to twenty pounds within a twenty two day
Speaker 1: period that she was gone. She said her two captors
Speaker 1: branded her on the right shoulder with a heated tool,
Speaker 1: though she didn't know what the word act that is meant,
Speaker 1: Apparently it is a reference to the Bible. She was
Speaker 1: forced to use a small bucket as a latrine, and
Speaker 1: she reported that one of the women appeared more sympathetic
Speaker 1: and that her release was likely negotiated by her I
Speaker 1: watched her interview when she was telling the police, and
Speaker 1: she calls the two Hispanic women that she claims abducted her.
Speaker 1: She says there was a big one and there was
Speaker 1: a small one, and she said the big one was
Speaker 1: the mean one, and the small one was more sympathetic
Speaker 1: towards her recorded police interviews was Sherry Peppini, and the
Speaker 1: hours after her return showed she was reluctant to speak
Speaker 1: with investigators, claiming that her abductors told her she was
Speaker 1: going to be trafficked to someone in law enforcement. Sheery
Speaker 1: avoided doing media interviews after she had escaped. She even
Speaker 1: avoided large.
Speaker 2: Crad Did she escape or negotiate her release?
Speaker 1: Well, what happened was they she was found dropped on
Speaker 1: the side of the room.
Speaker 2: I vaguely remember this in the news.
Speaker 1: Now I'm starting, and someone picks her up and he
Speaker 1: calls nine one one, and you can hear his nine
Speaker 1: one one recording, and he calls her first, he calls
Speaker 1: her Sherry Panini and then she says Peppini. So a
Speaker 1: bystander on the highway finds her and calls police, and
Speaker 1: she's like, has a chain wrapped around her waist and she.
Speaker 2: Has She's not very good negotiator.
Speaker 1: She has u ties. What are those zip ties?
Speaker 2: Cable ties?
Speaker 1: Cable ties? Right, So she avoids doing me to interviews
Speaker 1: after she's caught. There are several interviews that I watch
Speaker 1: in the documentary where the police are recording her. They're
Speaker 1: asking her questions about what happened, and I find her
Speaker 1: so disingenuine and so unlikable. She talks about things that
Speaker 1: don't make sense, Like she talks about how she texts
Speaker 1: her husband to come home for lunch, but lunch really
Speaker 1: means come home to have sex. I thought that was
Speaker 1: just odd that these are things that she's telling investigators
Speaker 1: when supposedly she's, you know, been kidnapped for twenty two
Speaker 1: days and has been beaten, and she's just making jokes
Speaker 1: about like sexual references with her husband. She says that
Speaker 1: she needs to close her eyes when she talks. She
Speaker 1: can't remember a lot of things anyway. I find her
Speaker 1: difficult to believe. There was also a skinheads dot com
Speaker 1: article amidst all of this, it was discovered that Sherry
Speaker 1: had written a racist post against the Hispanic community on
Speaker 1: a skinhead website under her maiden name Sherry Graf.
Speaker 2: Prior to or after.
Speaker 1: Prior to, the blog entry claims Peppini was persecuted by
Speaker 1: Latinos at her high school for being of German descent
Speaker 1: and that she was white and proud of her blood
Speaker 1: and heritage. The post read, I totally agree with skinheads
Speaker 1: that girls should not fight, they should stand by their men.
Speaker 1: Being white is my family, my roots, my way of life.
Speaker 1: It's always there. There's no denying it. It's nobility, its strength,
Speaker 1: it will be there. To lift me up when I
Speaker 1: really need my pride, when I need to keep walking.
Speaker 1: When asked about this post, Sherry denies writing it and
Speaker 1: claims someone impersonated her.
Speaker 2: Why would someone in personate her and go on a
Speaker 2: skinhead website? That's so random?
Speaker 1: It is random, But this is what happens when someone
Speaker 1: is the type of person who repeatedly lies about everything.
Speaker 1: On October twenty fifth, twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: So you find these cases that are very that just
Speaker 2: leave lots of questions.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's lots of questions. I think that.
Speaker 2: It's not going to be confusing. In this case, it
Speaker 2: sounds like it's going to be very confusing because you
Speaker 2: just said she's a liar. She's a liar, so well
Speaker 2: is Shelsey.
Speaker 1: So Sherry Peppini asks the FBI, can you do a
Speaker 1: sketch of the two women who abducted me? So she
Speaker 1: describes them, and they do a sketch and they release
Speaker 1: it to the media, and it's two Hispanic women, a
Speaker 1: bigger one and a smaller one, and they both have
Speaker 1: masks on because she claims that they covered their face
Speaker 1: for the majority of the time.
Speaker 2: She's just like so she asked for criminal sketch artists. Yes,
Speaker 2: and then she's like, oh, they wore masks, Yes, I
Speaker 2: could have drawn that.
Speaker 1: So basically they do the sketches of these two Hispanic women.
Speaker 1: They were basically just their eyes, their eyes and eyebrows.
Speaker 1: They release it. The media releases it like this is
Speaker 1: there's new developments in the Sherry Peppina case. The sketch
Speaker 1: artist has, you know, made these sketches based upon, you know,
Speaker 1: her detailed account of these two women that abducted her.
Speaker 1: The day that the sketch artist releases the sketches to
Speaker 1: the media is the same day that the FBI gets
Speaker 1: back DNA testing from her clothing from when she was abducted,
Speaker 1: and there's male DNA found in her underwear.
Speaker 2: And is it has it been excluded that it's not
Speaker 2: her husband's or boyfriends or whoever it is.
Speaker 1: No, it's not it's not her that out Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: So in the years following Sherry's return, local investigators as
Speaker 1: well as the FBI are very skeptical of her claims,
Speaker 1: so they continue their search and investigation and to her
Speaker 1: because if.
Speaker 2: She got beaten, there'd be some female DNA, you'd assume.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but they don't find any female DNA. They only
Speaker 1: find male DNA, not her husband, multiple males or no
Speaker 1: one male?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: The DNA evidence did not match her story. Investigators found
Speaker 1: male DNA on her clothing and belongings, despite her claim
Speaker 1: that she was abducted by two women. The DNA did
Speaker 1: not match her husband or any suspect until it was
Speaker 1: later matched to her ex boyfriend James Rays.
Speaker 2: Wait, how did they make that connection?
Speaker 1: Though they did, I don't know. They ran it through
Speaker 1: COTIS or whatever.
Speaker 2: It took a while in the system.
Speaker 1: Well no or no, Maybe it wasn't codis. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it says Familia familial dale.
Speaker 2: Maybe the voluntarily.
Speaker 1: DNA. Well he, I'm sure he gave up his DNA, so.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: The lack of forensic evidence supporting the abduction. There were
Speaker 1: no tire tracks, fingerprints of surveillance footage, or physical signs
Speaker 1: of an abduction were found where she allegedly disappeared. And also,
Speaker 1: I know the FBI investigator also made the claim that
Speaker 1: they were very suspicious of her from the very beginning
Speaker 1: because when they found the cell phone and the headphones
Speaker 1: apparently like her ear plugs or whatever, they were were
Speaker 1: wrapped up neatly and like laying on top of the
Speaker 1: cell phone, and the cell phone was lying on the ground.
Speaker 1: And then there were some blonde hairs that were kind
Speaker 1: of stuck into the earbuds.
Speaker 2: Like someone pulls up to kidnapp her, and she's like,
Speaker 2: hold on one second, she rolls up her earbuds. Yes,
Speaker 2: that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Yes, So he finds her phone. He actually before he
Speaker 1: picked up her phone, he took a picture of it.
Speaker 2: That's even weirder.
Speaker 1: Why is that weirder?
Speaker 2: Took a picture of your phone when I found it?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I guess because it was evidence and
Speaker 1: he didn't want to pick it up unless he took
Speaker 1: a photo of how it was sitting there.
Speaker 2: So he takes photos and he might be in it.
Speaker 2: We'll find out he's gone.
Speaker 1: He's not in it. Unusual branding. The forensic experts suggests
Speaker 1: that exodus branding looked deliberate and controlled, not consistent with
Speaker 1: the panicked act of violence. I guess, you know, I
Speaker 1: understand that too. If they're trying to brand her and
Speaker 1: she's like captive and all these things, wouldn't you be
Speaker 1: moving around? I think it just was very neatly done.
Speaker 2: It looked like she just I don't know, being wrapped up.
Speaker 1: Yes, so they found on her penterress page that the
Speaker 1: same wooden tools that were used to brand her back
Speaker 1: were part of her pinteress page.
Speaker 2: Did they check her Amazon account and she purchased like
Speaker 2: a brand?
Speaker 1: She didn't purchase them. James ray As purchased them. Oh
Speaker 1: really yes, and he had the receipt for it.
Speaker 2: Wait, so why are we bothered at? Okay, so she
Speaker 2: wanted to go away and get branded by her ex
Speaker 2: boyfriend or whatever. What's the what's the issue?
Speaker 1: Because she said to she said to Hispanic women abducted her.
Speaker 1: The theory is or what what it comes down to
Speaker 1: is that ray As is her ex boyfriend and she
Speaker 1: was having and she calls an emotional affair with him.
Speaker 1: They got burner phones and they were communicating. Then he
Speaker 1: comes from he lives in Coasta, Mesa. He drives from
Speaker 1: Coasta Mesa to reading anything emotion. She's trying to say
Speaker 1: she didn't have sex with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, so was it emotional DNA they found on
Speaker 2: her underwear?
Speaker 1: Yes, it was an emotional DNA on her underwear.
Speaker 2: Very well, keep gone.
Speaker 1: So they finally figure out because they don't believe her story.
Speaker 1: The two masks, the getting picked up on Thanksgiving?
Speaker 2: Where city they find her in the same city.
Speaker 1: No, they found her one hundred and fifty miles away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I thought, wasn't it down here in Coasta Mesa
Speaker 2: or something.
Speaker 1: No, she was James Ray's lived in Coasta Mesa and
Speaker 1: that's where she spent the twenty two days in Coasta Mesa.
Speaker 1: Then he drove her, I don't know, one hundred like
Speaker 1: towards Redding and then dropped her off on the side.
Speaker 2: Of the enough emotions for the weekend.
Speaker 1: When they on and zip ties she gets out of
Speaker 1: the car. I think there's actually surveillance of her running
Speaker 1: without the zip ties. And then when they and then
Speaker 1: when the police come then find her, she's zip tied,
Speaker 1: cable ties whatever they're called. And so basically what happens
Speaker 1: was what they didn't believe her story from the beginning.
Speaker 1: So they're investigating her the whole time, even though they're
Speaker 1: not telling her they're investigating her. They just keep interviewing
Speaker 1: her and interviewing the husband.
Speaker 2: And so she just divulges all this information while the.
Speaker 1: Whole time the FBI is like, this is a bunch
Speaker 1: of crap and they're investigating her without telling her. So
Speaker 1: they find the DNA, they link it to James Ray
Speaker 1: As the police go to Costa Mesa and they interview
Speaker 1: him and you can see they don't show him on camera.
Speaker 1: He clearly did not agree to show his imass or something. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they show body cams and they show audio, I mean
Speaker 1: not show, but you can hear audio, but they don't
Speaker 1: show his face on camera.
Speaker 2: Because he's just a witness at this point.
Speaker 1: Well, and what he says is that she asked him
Speaker 1: to come and pick her up because her husband's abusive
Speaker 1: and she wants to get out of the marriage. So
Speaker 1: in his eyes or the way he explains it is
Speaker 1: he's just helping this girl out. So he comes and
Speaker 1: he picks her Upie takes her to Coast to Mesa.
Speaker 1: Then she stays for twenty two days in his house.
Speaker 2: He probably can't stand her.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but he claims that all the physical things,
Speaker 1: all the harm, the bruises, everything, it was self inflicted,
Speaker 1: that she did it to herself, or that she directed
Speaker 1: him to do it. I guess he was a hockey
Speaker 1: player and she told him to hit her with a
Speaker 1: hockey puck and he broke her.
Speaker 2: Notes like she liked it or like to set up her.
Speaker 1: To set up her story. I guess that's how that's
Speaker 1: how much.
Speaker 2: Then he's a psycho too, because it's like, oh, let
Speaker 2: me go help this woman. What do you need? Do
Speaker 2: you need me to smack you in the face with
Speaker 2: that hockey puck?
Speaker 1: I agree. I don't understand for one second why this
Speaker 1: James Rays guy goes along with this, Probably because.
Speaker 2: He initially tried to save her and help her, and
Speaker 2: then you know, get emotional with her, and then they
Speaker 2: come down to coast to Mesa, and then he realized
Speaker 2: she's psycho. And then she says, well, let me let
Speaker 2: me like complete the story and you have I have
Speaker 2: been a so hit me in the face. And he's
Speaker 2: like gladly because she's psycho. And then he tied her
Speaker 2: up and dumped her off and he wants nothing to
Speaker 2: do with her anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I would say that, I would say
Speaker 1: that's pretty much in a nutshell.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And if she was nice and pleasant, I don't
Speaker 2: think he would hit her in the face with the
Speaker 2: hockey puck.
Speaker 1: One he goes along with this story two. When they
Speaker 1: interview him, he does not seem to be highly intelligent
Speaker 1: at all. He seems very like.
Speaker 2: Wasn't there receipts for a hotel too? Did they stay
Speaker 2: in a hotel or his place?
Speaker 1: No, they stayed at his home. There was a receipt
Speaker 1: for him buying the wood burning tools he had that.
Speaker 1: He's like, look, here's a receipt told me to buy it.
Speaker 1: And I think that they don't. The FBI doesn't give
Speaker 1: you a lot of information in these interviews that they do.
Speaker 1: They're very careful about their tools and tactics and behind
Speaker 1: the scenes.
Speaker 2: Well, that way, then she could say something that might
Speaker 2: conflict with what they found, and then that would be
Speaker 2: more suspicious.
Speaker 1: Right. But I'm just saying, even when they talk about
Speaker 1: it after the fact, even giving interviews after the fact,
Speaker 1: they don't give away a lot of information about how
Speaker 1: they knew James was manipulated by her. I know he passed,
Speaker 1: you know, a lie detector test, but we'll talk later
Speaker 1: about her because she takes one later. But I just
Speaker 1: I don't I feel like he's almost so simple, like
Speaker 1: he's not highly intelligent, that he just went along with
Speaker 1: this crazy scheme, because who in their right mind, has
Speaker 1: someone stayed with them for twenty two days when they
Speaker 1: have a wife, when they have a husband and young children,
Speaker 1: and then goes along with physically abusing them, and then
Speaker 1: goes along with dumping them on the side of the road,
Speaker 1: and doesn't think that that looks bad for them.
Speaker 2: It really makes my life feel very boring. Yeah, you're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: like you know, and he's probably less stressed than I
Speaker 2: am in.
Speaker 1: His life, probably so. After they found James's DNA, this
Speaker 1: was in August of twenty twenty, the FBI contacted and
Speaker 1: questioned James Reyes at his home in Coasta, Mesa, And
Speaker 1: let's just talk about what he told the investigators. He
Speaker 1: says that Peppini had reached out to him. He confirmed
Speaker 1: that he and Peppini had previously dated in the early
Speaker 1: two thousands. They were in constant communication via burner phones.
Speaker 1: Months before her disappearance, she'd tell him she needed to
Speaker 1: escape her abusive marriage and start over. He agreed to
Speaker 1: help her and picked her up in Reading, driving her
Speaker 1: six hundred miles south to his apartment in Costa Mesa.
Speaker 1: He claims she was never kidnapped. Rey said that Peppini
Speaker 1: stayed willingly in his apartment for the entire twenty two
Speaker 1: days that she was missing. He described her as staying
Speaker 1: mostly inside doing household chores, watching TV, and exercising. He
Speaker 1: claims she even watched the news coverage of her own disappearance.
Speaker 1: Injuries were self inflicted or assisted by him. Reyes admitted
Speaker 1: to helping her create some of the injuries, including holding
Speaker 1: a hockey stick so she could run into it and
Speaker 1: purposefully causing bruising. Branding her shoulder using a wood burning
Speaker 1: tool was at her request, she says later in an interview,
Speaker 1: to kind of to I don't know, get past the
Speaker 1: wood burning thing, because you know, I told you this.
Speaker 1: Wood burning tools were on her own pinterant page. The
Speaker 1: way she explains it after the fact is she says, oh, well,
Speaker 1: when he kidnapped me, we were having a conversation and
Speaker 1: I was telling him about how I was making these
Speaker 1: handcrafted Christmas cards with wood burning tools, and he was
Speaker 1: so interested in it that he went out and bought
Speaker 1: someone branded my you know, my shoulder. I mean, do
Speaker 1: you really think she's in Costa Mesa with James Ray's
Speaker 1: talking about how she makes Christmas cards for her kids.
Speaker 2: No, she's watching the coverage of her own.
Speaker 1: Right. Security cameras show Peppini running through an empty parking
Speaker 1: lot towards the highway on Thanksgiving morning. In the footage,
Speaker 1: her hands are not tied together. She is running normally. However,
Speaker 1: when a driver found her on the side of the road,
Speaker 1: they were zip tied and she was wearing a chain
Speaker 1: around her waist. She's like, don't forget to bring the
Speaker 1: zip ties and chain. I'll just put him in a
Speaker 1: I'll just I'll hang on to him and then right
Speaker 1: before the police come, I'll just put them on myself.
Speaker 1: I've always said ziptized. Are they not ziptized?
Speaker 2: Sable?
Speaker 1: Okay, reyas cooperated fully with the FBI. He consented to
Speaker 1: DNA collection, provided text messages, and allowed investigators to search
Speaker 1: his apartment. He passed the polygraph test, and authorities confirmed
Speaker 1: no chargers were filed against him as he had no
Speaker 1: criminal intent and was considered a cooperating witness. All right,
Speaker 1: so his account directly contradicted everything Peppini had told law
Speaker 1: enforcement and investigators now had a motive, a means, and
Speaker 1: the evidence, which was the DNA, the phone records, and
Speaker 1: the injury creation and that she'd faked her own abduction.
Speaker 1: The DOJ said Rey's cooperation was truthful, consistent, and corroborated
Speaker 1: by physical evidence. So the FBI is slowly building their case.
Speaker 1: From twenty twenty to twenty twenty two, investigators kept the
Speaker 1: case quiet for nearly two years. We talked about that.
Speaker 1: How they continue to talk to Pappinie, have interviews with her,
Speaker 1: but obviously they don't give away any information that they're
Speaker 1: investigating this as they kidnapping hoax.
Speaker 2: No let her say anything she wants.
Speaker 1: Right, They confirm and consistency in her interviews. They track
Speaker 1: how she spent one hundred thousand plus dollars of victim funds,
Speaker 1: disability payments, and go fundme donations.
Speaker 2: Some of those gounfund me things are people are way
Speaker 2: too quick to just set them up and give people money,
Speaker 2: and it's like there's probably a lot of scammers on there.
Speaker 1: Well, she got disability because so she's taking disability. She
Speaker 1: also received money from like a California victims fund. And
Speaker 1: then also clearly the state or the city or whoever
Speaker 1: pays for it, taxpayers pay for her for the search efforts.
Speaker 1: So they build a case against her for mail fraud
Speaker 1: which are the benefits that she received, and false statement,
Speaker 1: which is lying to federal agents. On March third of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Sherry Peppini is arrested while tending her
Speaker 1: children's music lessons. The charges against her are mail fraud
Speaker 1: and making false statements to federal officers. The FBI released
Speaker 1: a forty four page data outlining all her planning with
Speaker 1: ray As, her false statements about the two Hispanic women,
Speaker 1: and her misuse of victim compensation funds. On April eighteenth
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two, Sherry Peppini pleaded guilty to one
Speaker 1: count of mail fraud and one count of making false statements.
Speaker 1: Now I know they do an interview with her attorney
Speaker 1: and she makes it like and when she talks about
Speaker 1: the allegations against her, and when they arrest her, she
Speaker 1: does this very woe is me. I don't even understand
Speaker 1: what's going on. I don't even understand why I'm in jail.
Speaker 1: I don't understand anything against me. And she talks about
Speaker 1: how like someone else and jail with her had to
Speaker 1: explain the charges to her because she didn't even understand
Speaker 1: what was going on. I just felt like when she talks,
Speaker 1: she does a very good job of doing this like
Speaker 1: victim role. She's very good at that. Here's just something
Speaker 1: else I want to talk about, because if you watch
Speaker 1: a Perfect Wife or maybe even in the in her
Speaker 1: recent interview, after she was married to Keith, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how long after, but she got caught texting other
Speaker 1: men and she has a little history, well, she has
Speaker 1: a history of what she calls always having these emotional affairs.
Speaker 1: And I like how she calls them emotional affairs so
Speaker 1: that she's never actually admitting that she has sex with
Speaker 1: any of these other men. It's basically like Keith was
Speaker 1: so terrible to her, and he was so awful, and
Speaker 1: he wouldn't even talk to her, and he was controlling
Speaker 1: and abusive and all these things that she claims that
Speaker 1: she always had to have these emotional affairs with other men,
Speaker 1: and she would save you know, these other guy's numbers
Speaker 1: with like a female name, so she probably had like
Speaker 1: Jane and you know, Laurie and all these people that
Speaker 1: she was texting with, but they were men. Anyway, Keith
Speaker 1: finds out that she's been having these you know, emotional
Speaker 1: affairs as she calls them, with other men, and he
Speaker 1: makes her sign a post nuptial agreement after they've been
Speaker 1: married for a while.
Speaker 2: This is prior pre kidnapping.
Speaker 1: This is pre kidnapping. So I didn't read. I tried
Speaker 1: to find the post nuptial agreement. They actually show it
Speaker 1: a little bit on the four part series where she
Speaker 1: does an interview.
Speaker 2: But do you have money or something?
Speaker 1: I don't think they have a lot of money. They
Speaker 1: seem just very middle class to me. He's like an
Speaker 1: audio visual specialist for Best Buy and she's a stay
Speaker 1: at home mom. So basically, after he finds out that
Speaker 1: she's having, you know, these emotional affairs and she's texting
Speaker 1: other men, he makes her sign a post nuptial agreement.
Speaker 2: Why does he just make her agree not to have
Speaker 2: these emotional affairs like.
Speaker 1: A post non emotional affair agreement, So she signs this
Speaker 1: post nuptial agreement. It's completely one sided. It's basically says
Speaker 1: if she's caught, well.
Speaker 2: It's probably not even valid. I bet he just drafted
Speaker 2: himself and said, here's sign this right, which you can't do.
Speaker 2: Both sides need to have an attorney. Even if she
Speaker 2: says I don't want an attorney, she kind of has
Speaker 2: to have an attorney to make it valid.
Speaker 1: Well, I actually read in a pre nuptial agreement both
Speaker 1: people have to have representation, but for some reason, in
Speaker 1: a post nuptial it doesn't say that you have to
Speaker 1: have representation. It says that it can't be one sided
Speaker 1: and it can't be unconscionable, but it recommends that you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he should have made sure she had an
Speaker 2: attorney so she can't later say what, I didn't know
Speaker 2: what was going on.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing that is interesting to me is that
Speaker 1: they make a big deal about this post nuptial agreement,
Speaker 1: about how one sided it was, and in my mind,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking it wouldn't even be enforceable. Everybody's making it
Speaker 1: like he forced her to sign it.
Speaker 2: Whole scheme of things anyway.
Speaker 1: Well, to me, I think the post nuptial agreement is
Speaker 1: very important because I feel as if she wanted to
Speaker 1: have an affair with James ray As, but the only
Speaker 1: way she could have an affair is to make it
Speaker 1: look like a kidnapping hoax so that the post nuptial
Speaker 1: agreement wouldn't come into effect because basically he made her
Speaker 1: sign a very one did.
Speaker 2: The post agreement steps then they do.
Speaker 1: With an affair, Yes, he made her sign it.
Speaker 2: Basically, you can't do that stuff anyway. Sorry, you can't
Speaker 2: do that stuff anyway. You can't be like, if you
Speaker 2: cheat on me, you don't get this money.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm saying this nuptial agreement that he made
Speaker 1: her sign was basically, if you cheat on me, if
Speaker 1: you talk to other men, if you have affairs, you
Speaker 1: get nothing, you get no money, you.
Speaker 2: Leave, or if you stage a kidnapping.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he forgot to add that part to.
Speaker 2: The emotional affairs. If there's any male DNA found on you.
Speaker 1: In your underwear, yes, so to me, I feel as
Speaker 1: if the post nuptial agreement is very interesting because I
Speaker 1: feel as if she created this whole kidnapping hoax in
Speaker 1: order to have an affair with her ex boyfriend, and
Speaker 1: if she did get caught, then she just blames it
Speaker 1: on a kidnapping hoax so that she's not actually having
Speaker 1: an affair with her ex boyfriend, so that the post
Speaker 1: nuptial agreement doesn't come into effect and he gets to
Speaker 1: take the kids and all the money and everything, even though,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, this post nuptial agreement wouldn't be valid anyway, passable.
Speaker 2: It's one sided her it's valid.
Speaker 1: Right, but she clearly thinks it's valid.
Speaker 2: But you're just guessing all this.
Speaker 1: I'm just putting.
Speaker 2: I'm just putting your theory.
Speaker 1: My theory is that she she.
Speaker 2: Signed the agreement and then she tried to abide.
Speaker 1: By it, and then she tried to abide by it
Speaker 1: by thinking, I want to have an affair with my
Speaker 1: ex emotion my boyfriend, an emotional affair, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to do it. However, I can't get caught having an affair,
Speaker 1: so I have to make it look like a kidnapping.
Speaker 1: So there you go. That's just my my thoughts on.
Speaker 2: That her commitment to having affairs is right.
Speaker 1: Yes, it is right.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I remember when they do the four part interview where
Speaker 1: she speaks up and she now claims that it was
Speaker 1: a kidnapping. So that's where we're at now, current like
Speaker 1: present day.
Speaker 2: Well, so she still admits it's that or she still
Speaker 2: sticks to the story that's a kidnapping.
Speaker 1: No, So she was arrested and for the kidnapping, she
Speaker 1: signs a plea agreement with very specific language basically saying
Speaker 1: that she planned a hoax, that it was a fake kidnapping.
Speaker 1: She signs it, and then she's sentenced to I believe,
Speaker 1: two years in prison. She's released from prison. Now that
Speaker 1: she's released from prison, here we are in present day
Speaker 1: and now she's doing interviews and she's saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: it wasn't a kidnapping hoax. I was abducted. So that's
Speaker 1: where we're at today. She's now recanting, well, what's the matter.
Speaker 1: You already served your time, lady. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: she claims she's married to this guy.
Speaker 2: Still.
Speaker 1: No, he filed for divorce after she was the I
Speaker 1: don't know. They don't they They do an interview with
Speaker 1: her family law attorney, which is entertaining. She's very entertaining.
Speaker 2: Does she have access to those kids? I wouldn't want
Speaker 2: her to have accesses?
Speaker 1: No, currently she does.
Speaker 2: Without supervised visitation.
Speaker 1: So she's fighting for that's a saying because that's where
Speaker 1: we're at currently is she's now recanting the kidnapping hoax
Speaker 1: and saying that she was abducted by James. She's claiming
Speaker 1: that she lied about it because I guess because she
Speaker 1: was scared of him, or she didn't want her husband
Speaker 1: to know she was having an affair so she made
Speaker 1: up the two Hispanic women. She doesn't want her husband
Speaker 1: or anyone to know that she was with James, so
Speaker 1: she claims she was abducted by two Hispanic women. Then
Speaker 1: when they found when the FBI says we know it
Speaker 1: was James because his DNA is in your underwear and
Speaker 1: we've interviewed him, then she says, oh, well, I said
Speaker 1: it was James's mom, and I described James's mom, so
Speaker 1: it would lead you to James without me actually saying
Speaker 1: it was James. And now that she's out of prison,
Speaker 1: she's saying it wasn't a kidnapping hoax, it really was James.
Speaker 1: But then I found the FBI investigator said, which I
Speaker 1: found funny. He goes, he said, well, James Ray's his
Speaker 1: mom was Irish or something like that, Like she wasn't
Speaker 1: Hispanic anyway. Yeah, she wasn't Hispanic anyway. And she wasn't
Speaker 1: and she wasn't Hispanic.
Speaker 2: Why are they even entertaining whatever she has is saying anyway?
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, you know that's maybe.
Speaker 2: The public because she's speaking about it and it's interesting,
Speaker 2: but like, why is law enforcement bothering with her? They
Speaker 2: shouldn't be, Well, they're not.
Speaker 1: Now she's been released from prison and they're not. But
Speaker 1: here's the thing. Now she's doing all these interviews. So
Speaker 1: now she did this interview with Investigation Discovery. They made
Speaker 1: a four part series about her. She went on Nick Vile,
Speaker 1: the Vile Files, and she's doubling down on them. Believe
Speaker 1: her story that it was a real abduction.
Speaker 2: So let's we get her on here and we call
Speaker 2: her out.
Speaker 1: You want to get Sherry Pepina. Can we make that happen.
Speaker 1: Let's make Scherry call her out. I would love for
Speaker 1: you to do an interview with Shane Simpson.
Speaker 2: Oh so many holes in her story. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: So Sherry pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud,
Speaker 1: one count of making false statements, and she was sentenced
Speaker 1: to eighteen okay, it was eighteen months in prison and
Speaker 1: agreed to pay three hundred and nine thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty six dollars and thirty three cents in a restitution.
Speaker 1: This was the breakdown. She took thirty thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: ninety four dollars from the California Victim Compensation Board. She
Speaker 1: took one hundred and twenty seven thousand, seven hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty three dollars from the Social Security Administration for benefits,
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty eight thousand to the Shasta County
Speaker 1: Sheriff's office for the cost of investigating the case, and
Speaker 1: twenty five hundred and fifty eight dollars to the FBI
Speaker 1: for the government sentencing or to the FBI for their
Speaker 1: role in it doesn't seem like a lot. Twenty five
Speaker 1: hundred dollars to the FBI, I don't know, but anyway,
Speaker 1: that's where they got the breakdown of what her restitution was,
Speaker 1: which was a total.
Speaker 2: Sharyot money like that without I mean, she was able
Speaker 2: to bamboozle them and get all that money. Well, she got.
Speaker 1: Money from the California Victim Compensation, then she got money
Speaker 1: from the Social Security Administration offices for benefits because she
Speaker 1: said she.
Speaker 2: Was disabled, just to hand out six figures like that.
Speaker 1: So Sherry Peppini is released from prison after serving about
Speaker 1: eleven months in a federal facility. She was released to
Speaker 1: a residential re entry center then placed on supervised probation.
Speaker 1: So what has she been doing from twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: to currently? She lost custody of her two children and
Speaker 1: who now live with her ex husband Keith. She began
Speaker 1: telling a revised version of the story, claiming Reya psychologically
Speaker 1: manipulated her and that she was trapped in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four to twenty twenty five. Her new claims were featured
Speaker 1: in Perfect Wife, which I told you guys to watch,
Speaker 1: and Caught in the Lie which is the new one
Speaker 1: on HBO, which is her most recent interview. And then
Speaker 1: I guess she has a self published memoir Sherry Peppini
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. And then she did the Vile Files podcast,
Speaker 1: so that's where she's out speaking now. Also, this was
Speaker 1: another thing that was in this new documentary is she
Speaker 1: takes a polygraph and I thought for sure that she
Speaker 1: was going to fail this polygraph.
Speaker 2: Because clearly asked her.
Speaker 1: So Sharry and James both took polygraphs and both passed,
Speaker 1: despite their stories contradicting one another.
Speaker 2: Enough for me, what did they ask or know?
Speaker 1: I do? I do know the questions that she passed.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you first of all, she failed some of
Speaker 1: the questions, and she passed some of the questions. The
Speaker 1: ones that she passed, though, were the ones that were
Speaker 1: the most important because they go to the heart of
Speaker 1: this story that she's now telling. So among the questions
Speaker 1: she was asked while at james house in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: were you free to leave at any time without fear
Speaker 1: of violence? And did you ask James to brand you?
Speaker 1: She answered no to both of those questions and she
Speaker 1: passed them. Also, I don't know, maybe that's a too
Speaker 1: too much compound in sent Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying. It matters what they asked.
Speaker 1: Were you free to leave at any time without fear
Speaker 1: of violence? I don't know, I mean maybe that's just
Speaker 1: too convoluted instead of just asking were you free to leave? Right?
Speaker 1: You know, Like, I think they made the questions too complicated. Also,
Speaker 1: I was also thinking that maybe she passed because there's
Speaker 1: been a long period of time since the kidnapping to
Speaker 1: when she took this lie detector test.
Speaker 2: And who administered light test? Like who who was it
Speaker 2: that set it up? Did she just do it on
Speaker 2: her own?
Speaker 1: She did it through this new interview, this interview that
Speaker 1: she did, so I don't know because she did it
Speaker 1: on camera.
Speaker 2: What was the second question you referenced, did you ask.
Speaker 1: James to brand you? Which is very straightforward? She said
Speaker 1: no and she passed that maybe she didn't ask him,
Speaker 1: Maybe she just gave him the branding tools.
Speaker 2: I'm saying how they asked her, there should be follow
Speaker 2: up questions. There may very well have been.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there were other questions that she was asked that
Speaker 1: she did not pass.
Speaker 2: Do polygraph questions are they only? Are they mostly yes?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Questions? Well I don't or like factual like a date
Speaker 2: or something, or can it be how did you get
Speaker 2: the branding?
Speaker 1: I think you're supposed to make the questions as simplistic
Speaker 1: as possible with with yes no answers, because what the
Speaker 1: what what it's reading is a physical response. But my
Speaker 1: thought was this kidnapping happened in twenty sixteen. Here she
Speaker 1: is in twenty twenty five taking a lie detector test.
Speaker 1: Does the passage of time make a difference on a
Speaker 1: physical response? Maybe she's told this story so many times
Speaker 1: at this point.
Speaker 2: But you know what, even if she's even those questions
Speaker 2: are accurately answered, it doesn't It doesn't help with anything.
Speaker 2: It's a mess. Was she wasn't she under what her?
Speaker 2: I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Right, It's still
Speaker 2: a mess. Right, doesn't solve the case.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any solving it. I think what
Speaker 1: it comes down to is I think she's a known
Speaker 1: liar and narcissist and sociopath. I think that she she
Speaker 1: The fact that they had burner phones and they were
Speaker 1: communicating she and James, Well, it's.
Speaker 2: Anyone that says they're having any emotional fair right there,
Speaker 2: they're lying.
Speaker 1: And the fact that she's returned on Thanksgiving Day, she
Speaker 1: didn't pick her kids up from daycare that day. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. To me, it just seems like it
Speaker 1: was concocted by her. It was her way of having
Speaker 1: an affair without her husband knowing that she was having
Speaker 1: an affair. It was an elaborate scheme. I think she
Speaker 1: lies a lot. I think she's a master at lying.
Speaker 1: Her interview, there were several parts of her interview that
Speaker 1: really bothered me. In this newest interview that she did,
Speaker 1: there was one part where she looks directly at the
Speaker 1: camera when she's talking to the producer, because the producer
Speaker 1: says something like why did you lie? And she looks
Speaker 1: right at the camera and she goes, haven't you lied?
Speaker 1: Haven't you lied? Have you ever in your life lied?
Speaker 1: And I remember sitting there looking at her and thinking, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sure all of us a little bit, like I'll
Speaker 1: tell Annabel that, you know, we don't have any cookies left.
Speaker 1: I remember telling the boys that McDonald's was closed, Like.
Speaker 2: You come home and I say where were you? And
Speaker 2: I'm like, oh, I was kidnapped. This guy was having
Speaker 2: the emotional affair with right.
Speaker 1: I just I thought, Wow, the nerve of this woman
Speaker 1: to look directly in the camera at us out here,
Speaker 1: at the audience and say, haven't you ever lied?
Speaker 2: The answer is yes, she did. That's what she's saying.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, exactly, Well she's saying she lied about the kidnapping.
Speaker 2: I don't know, so, you know, of all things, what
Speaker 2: gets to me is I wake up worried, stressed about
Speaker 2: my day. Bill's getting paid this net and these people
Speaker 2: live just one day at a time.
Speaker 1: They live one one kidnapping hopes at a time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: one whe detector test.
Speaker 2: That got, I know, yeah, she got. She probably has
Speaker 2: way less stress than I do.
Speaker 1: Probably. Scherry claims that James passed the lie detector test
Speaker 1: because he's a sociopath, not her.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not her.
Speaker 1: She's not the sociopath. It's James. He's a sociopath. Keith
Speaker 1: Peppini claims that his daughter Violet and said Sherry would
Speaker 1: force her children to inhale cotton swabs drenched and rubbing
Speaker 1: alcohol when they were sick to make them even more sick.
Speaker 1: Sherry denies this, claiming she gave her children essential oils
Speaker 1: when they were sick because they were allergic to vis
Speaker 1: That was one of the things he said in the documentary.
Speaker 1: If you watch The Perfect Wife, at the very end,
Speaker 1: he talks about how his children said that she would
Speaker 1: so like cotton balls and alcohol and then tie it
Speaker 1: around their neck. I don't know if there's any truth
Speaker 1: to that. I have no idea. It doesn't make any
Speaker 1: sense that you would tie anything around a child's neck.
Speaker 1: I don't care if it's essential oils or if it's alcohol.
Speaker 1: It all seems very odd to me. Sherry's therapist, family lawyer,
Speaker 1: and sister in law whose name is Suzanne, that's Key's
Speaker 1: biological sister, all believe her story. First of all, when
Speaker 1: you talk about let me just say this, if you
Speaker 1: guys watch the four part documentary of her recent interview,
Speaker 1: they do interview her therapist. Her therapist annoys me. He
Speaker 1: believes everything this woman says.
Speaker 2: He it's a male and you're willing. No, I don't
Speaker 2: like him. Why did you just call him entertaining?
Speaker 1: No, I don't like him. I don't like him at all,
Speaker 1: because this is what I think. I think so many
Speaker 1: people find a therapist that they yes therapist, someone that
Speaker 1: they can manipulate, that they can just tell all their
Speaker 1: their side of the story, and then the therapist is like,
Speaker 1: those people are wrong, They shouldn't treat you like that.
Speaker 1: You're right. Do you really get anything out of therapy
Speaker 1: if you just find someone that just goes along with
Speaker 1: everything that you're saying and they can't discern between delusion
Speaker 1: and fact and lies. And I don't know, I just
Speaker 1: didn't like the therapist. I felt that like the therapist
Speaker 1: just enabled her by saying that, you know, he believes
Speaker 1: everything she said. And the reason she lies is because
Speaker 1: she has trauma. And when you have a lot of trauma,
Speaker 1: you just lie about things because you can't really remember
Speaker 1: what happened anyway, because there was trauma. I don't know.
Speaker 1: In Sheery's HBO docuseries, this is the most recent one,
Speaker 1: her mother, who was supposedly on her side, explicitly said
Speaker 1: the incident was not a kidnapping. Sherry writes this off
Speaker 1: as her mother being confused, and also the editing twisting
Speaker 1: things around. I love when people blame the editing. That
Speaker 1: happens on Housewives too. Everyone for their bad behavior always
Speaker 1: likes to blame the editing. I like when people like
Speaker 1: after an episode comes out and everyone's liked, it was me,
Speaker 1: it was that iting. Keith Peppini still retains custody of
Speaker 1: their two children. Sherry has allowed one supervised visit per month,
Speaker 1: lasting about one hour. She's allowed weekly calls with the
Speaker 1: children at Keith's discretion. However, Sherry claims she's only seen
Speaker 1: her children three times since being out of prison. Also,
Speaker 1: there's another thing in her this most recent docuseries, she
Speaker 1: records herself having a phone call with her children. I
Speaker 1: guess she gets to talk to them on Sundays. So
Speaker 1: she sets up the camera and she records herself having
Speaker 1: a conversation with her kids. She's so dramatic. She she's
Speaker 1: overly like, oh baby, tell me more. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: I tell me so much. Yes. Then she hangs up
Speaker 1: with her children, and then she screams and is like
Speaker 1: grabbing her head and she's all dramatic, and she's sobbing
Speaker 1: and sobbing well right that she gets the one weekly
Speaker 1: phone call with them, And I'm just so I am
Speaker 1: so turned off by people who set up a phone
Speaker 1: to record themselves and then record themselves having this over
Speaker 1: the top, dramatic, ridiculous, you know response. And then they
Speaker 1: give it to the producers and they're like, here, here, here,
Speaker 1: here's what happens here, Please show this. This is what happens.
Speaker 1: You know when I only get a weekly call with
Speaker 1: my children, you know, I cry and scream and I
Speaker 1: act dramatic.
Speaker 2: I know there's people to do that. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: And then there's also another scene where I guess Keith
Speaker 1: comes over to where she's living and he wants her
Speaker 1: to sign custody of the children over, and she secretly
Speaker 1: records him. So she has the phone, she like puts
Speaker 1: it under the bed, she records him, and then they
Speaker 1: play this audio and I'm thinking, if you're trying to
Speaker 1: make this guy look bad, I actually agree with him.
Speaker 1: He goes over and he's like, let's just do this
Speaker 1: the easy way without having to pay attorneys and things
Speaker 1: like why don't you just sign the kids over to me,
Speaker 1: this is when she's going to prison. She signed a
Speaker 1: plea deal. She's going to prison, and she records it
Speaker 1: as if she's catching him, you know, being mean and
Speaker 1: being abusive to her. But let's be honest, she knows
Speaker 1: that she's recording the conversation, so she's very calm and
Speaker 1: she says everything correctly, and all it does is catch
Speaker 1: him saying that that she can do this the easy
Speaker 1: way or the hard way. She can either sign over
Speaker 1: custody of the kids or they can fight for custody,
Speaker 1: and she's going to federal prison. So again, I felt
Speaker 1: like that was a manipulation tactic of her trying to
Speaker 1: make this guy look bad and controlling and abusive and
Speaker 1: all these things. But anyway, I just found her behavior
Speaker 1: to be the manipulative behavior. But anyway, all right, are
Speaker 1: we gonna talk about her more?
Speaker 2: Is she like, well, I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. It depends on if she
Speaker 1: has any she has more docuseries explain in trying to
Speaker 1: say that she it now was a kidnapping hoax. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, who knows. This woman's all over
Speaker 1: the place. I don't trust anything that she says, and
Speaker 1: I do believe the kids are safer with their father.
Speaker 1: At least I feel like they have some stability with him.
Speaker 1: And I do know that she has a current family
Speaker 1: law case where she is trying to get more custody.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can see what happens with that.
Speaker 2: But she'll get some visitation and then they'll be aged
Speaker 2: out and then they'll be into that.
Speaker 1: Anyway, we did our best to try to fit that
Speaker 1: story into an hour. It's very complex. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of other things that happen. I would suggest if you
Speaker 1: find Cherry Peppini's case interesting, to go back and watch
Speaker 1: A Perfect Wife on Hulu and then watch her four
Speaker 1: part recent series it's on Max. So thank you for
Speaker 1: listening to our Sherry Peppini case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Sherry Peppinia to get for giving us
Speaker 2: something to talk about. And you are a nut. Just
Speaker 2: good luck with your life like it is, Shane.
Speaker 1: Thanks guys,