Speaker 1: Hi guys, welcome to Legally Brunette. I will be your
Speaker 1: host today Emily Simpson and my co.
Speaker 2: Host Shane Simpson.
Speaker 3: All right, so first of.
Speaker 1: All, we're going to go to just a little bit
Speaker 1: of a brief update on the Menindez case. So, there
Speaker 1: were two prosecutors, Brock Lunsford and Nancy Theeburg, who filed
Speaker 1: notices of claim on Monday that they intend to sue
Speaker 1: DA Hawkman and the Deputy District Attorney John Lewin for retaliation, defamation,
Speaker 1: and discrimination. So these two prosecutors said that they made
Speaker 1: a presentation last October arguing that Eric and Lyle Menindez
Speaker 1: should be re sentenced in their nineteen eighty nine murders
Speaker 1: of their parents, Jose and Kitty because their imprisonment no
Speaker 1: longer served the interest of justice. Some high ranking La
Speaker 1: County prosecutors disagreed with the move, including their supervisor. So
Speaker 1: this is according to their notice of claim. Hawkman announced
Speaker 1: his intention to review the decision after handily defeating Gascon
Speaker 1: last November. So as we know they have, they have
Speaker 1: a hearing coming up on March twentieth and the twenty first.
Speaker 1: So these two das have been big supporters of them
Speaker 1: being re sentenced, and they're saying that now Hawkman has
Speaker 1: come in and that they've been demoted.
Speaker 3: So one of them.
Speaker 1: Says that he's now been moved to a calendar clerk
Speaker 1: or something like that, and then the other one claims
Speaker 1: that she received high regards in her position, but now
Speaker 1: she's been moved to something else. So they're saying that
Speaker 1: they've been retaliated against because they've been supporting the resentencing
Speaker 1: of the Menendez brothers. Also, what's interesting is they're hearing
Speaker 1: on March twentieth and twenty. First, if you guys have
Speaker 1: not heard, they will be. They're supposed to be attending
Speaker 1: this hearing in person, which will be the first time
Speaker 1: in thirty years that they've been seen in public, so
Speaker 1: that that will be a media storm.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, And also are you gonna be there?
Speaker 3: I would love to be there if I can get
Speaker 3: a ticket.
Speaker 1: And also I heard that they cannot wear regular clothing.
Speaker 1: Like if you remember when Luigi made his first Luigi Mangioni,
Speaker 1: he made his appearance, he was like decked in designer.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's gonna wear his prison uniform.
Speaker 3: They're gonna they're gonna wear a prison.
Speaker 4: Well, the reason is because he's already sentenced. He's they're
Speaker 4: already in jail. So when they have someone on trial
Speaker 4: innocent before proven guilty, right, so they don't Sometimes they
Speaker 4: don't want the jury to prejudge by seeing them in like,
Speaker 4: you know, an orange jumpsuit, right, so they have home
Speaker 4: dress and then come into the court and then change
Speaker 4: back into their jumpsuit or whatever the uniform is, go
Speaker 4: back to prison weather and custody. So I'm guessing this
Speaker 4: time it just doesn't matter because the judge already knows
Speaker 4: they're in jail, and it's just a resentencing hearing. It's
Speaker 4: not a guilty not guilty.
Speaker 1: Right, and just a reminder that it's not the da
Speaker 1: Hawkman who makes the decision for them to be resents.
Speaker 1: All he does is make a recommendation to the judge
Speaker 1: and then the judge ultimately decides right.
Speaker 4: But important nevertheless, because he's still presenting evidence to the
Speaker 4: judge right and making the case right.
Speaker 3: Exactly the case.
Speaker 1: Based upon everything that we've heard about Hawkman so far,
Speaker 1: my gut feeling is that he's not going to be
Speaker 1: very pro recently.
Speaker 4: Now. I saw him on TV like a couple months ago,
Speaker 4: I don't know why because I wasn't following the case
Speaker 4: as close as you. But he he made a good point.
Speaker 4: He goes, I'm not just gonna just throw it in
Speaker 4: front of the judge because it's popular and because it's
Speaker 4: all over media. He goes, I'm now in, you know,
Speaker 4: in my position where I have to review it. Like
Speaker 4: he's kind of like, okay, now it's it's on my desk.
Speaker 4: I got to review it. I gotta like, I can't
Speaker 4: just go off of everyone's word because it's on Netflix.
Speaker 4: And that was true, but you know, only to come
Speaker 4: to this point where it sounds like it's a little
Speaker 4: power trip for him.
Speaker 3: Maybe yeah, all right, So we're gonna move on.
Speaker 1: And we've already done two podcasts on the Blake Lively
Speaker 1: Justin Baldoni mess.
Speaker 3: That's what I call it. It is a it is
Speaker 3: a p R.
Speaker 1: It is a juicy mess. If you haven't listened to
Speaker 1: our first two podcasts, go back and listen. We go
Speaker 1: through up until today where we're going to start. First
Speaker 1: of all, the last thing we have not spoken about.
Speaker 1: They did have a hearing. It was a pre trial conference,
Speaker 1: and basically what happened was there was a gag order
Speaker 1: that was requested. They really wanted Brian Friedman to shut
Speaker 1: up and stop talking. Brian Friedman, he's out there a lot,
Speaker 1: he's out there on TMZ, he's he's doing podcasts, He's
Speaker 1: talking a lot. And I find it really ironic that
Speaker 1: they're telling him that he needs to stop talking, considering
Speaker 1: that when they filed that initial complaint with the California
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Department that they I mean, it looks to me.
Speaker 3: Allegedly, it looks like they just colluded with the New
Speaker 3: York Times and the New York City.
Speaker 2: Reynolds wants it to continue to be one sided.
Speaker 1: It was very It was very one sided. The article
Speaker 1: was very one sided. It was not a balanced article.
Speaker 1: And again, if you recall we've talked about this in
Speaker 1: our first podcast, they gave Justin Baldoni's side, very very
Speaker 1: little time to respond. I think they got an email
Speaker 1: the night before basically saying, hey, do you want to.
Speaker 3: Respond to this?
Speaker 1: So anyway, what happened was and the hearing, the judge
Speaker 1: basically said, let's just follow the you know, the professional
Speaker 1: rules of responsibility, which is Rule three point six, which
Speaker 1: says which basically bars lawyers from making statements publicly that
Speaker 1: could sway the outcome.
Speaker 3: Of the trial.
Speaker 1: First of all, to me, that is a very generalized
Speaker 1: broad statement. I mean clearly, any attorney talking on behalf
Speaker 1: of their client is going to advocate.
Speaker 4: Well, I think, I know, I know, but I think
Speaker 4: the ideas because you see them making press conferences all
Speaker 4: the time right from big profile, high profile cases, So
Speaker 4: I think the ideas they can. They're supposed to only
Speaker 4: go on there and say things like my client's innocent.
Speaker 2: We're going to argue.
Speaker 4: Zellously blah blah blah, not giving specific facts like they
Speaker 4: can deny things, but you don't want them to come
Speaker 4: in there and you know, give the you know, taints
Speaker 4: the jury with evidence that may not be admissible in court,
Speaker 4: but they're throwing it out there right public.
Speaker 1: But what also is interesting is that Brian Friedman and
Speaker 1: Justin Baldoni's team released the website two days before that
Speaker 1: pre trial conference where they were going to discuss a
Speaker 1: gag order. So I call him the FAFO attorney because
Speaker 1: he knew that that was going to be discussed. They
Speaker 1: want a head and through that website out there. Anyway,
Speaker 1: if you have the chance to look at it, what
Speaker 1: he did was he put the amended complaint on there
Speaker 1: and also the whole text message email chain between him.
Speaker 1: There's text with him and Ryan Reynolds, there's all the
Speaker 1: text with him and Blake Lively. I think that was
Speaker 1: just the point they were making, was that they're they're
Speaker 1: the side that's being transparent.
Speaker 3: They're just putting it.
Speaker 4: All out there, and they're probably arguing two cases, one
Speaker 4: in court and one with the public.
Speaker 1: Well, that's absolutely and I would say at this point
Speaker 1: he's winning in the public.
Speaker 3: It's if this is.
Speaker 1: A if this is the court of pr and publicity,
Speaker 1: Baldoni is on.
Speaker 2: Top of this team. Baldoni.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So also in this hearing, Justin Baldoni's attorney, Brian Freeman,
Speaker 1: claims that his client is devastated financially and emotionally, and
Speaker 1: he also wants to depose Blake Lively quickly and get.
Speaker 3: Right into discovery.
Speaker 1: Then I also saw he did Brian Freeman did a
Speaker 1: podcast the other day. There's a new podcast called Two
Speaker 1: Angry Men, which is Mark Garregos and Harvey Levin, who
Speaker 1: is the TMZ guy, And on that podcast, Brian Freeman
Speaker 1: was making reference to Justin Baldoni. Basically losing four projects
Speaker 1: because of these accusations against him. So when people are like, wow,
Speaker 1: four hundred million dollars, well, that's because they're going to argue.
Speaker 1: They're going to argue that those are the damages and
Speaker 1: that's what's been lost. So Lively's attorney claimed during this
Speaker 1: hearing that they're going to file an amended complaint. The
Speaker 1: amended complaint was supposed to be filed by February fourteenth,
Speaker 1: So I really thought when we recorded this podcast today
Speaker 1: that we would be able to discuss her amended complaint and.
Speaker 4: Who is Okay Lively is amending her complaints? Do we
Speaker 4: have any idea what she's trying to amend.
Speaker 3: Well, here's my thoughts.
Speaker 1: First of all, if she's amending the content, like I
Speaker 1: have more allegations against him, I find that to be
Speaker 1: suspect because if you were originally going to file a
Speaker 1: complaint about someone, you had months and months to prepare it,
Speaker 1: you're working with The New York Times on it, you
Speaker 1: would have thrown everything out there in the beginning.
Speaker 3: You wouldn't have held stuff.
Speaker 4: So it's not an amendment to add evidence, it's just
Speaker 4: an like cause of action. Well, because evidence is for trial, right,
Speaker 4: So I mean it's probably yeah, you're right, it's probably
Speaker 4: more causes of action.
Speaker 1: I don't know what those are. I assume they would
Speaker 1: have been originally. I do think that she's probably going
Speaker 1: to add Jed Wallace. He is the guy that is
Speaker 1: in Texas that he was named in the original complaint
Speaker 1: that Blake Lively filed. Or he has some kind of
Speaker 1: PR type of business where I don't know he does,
Speaker 1: like astroturfing or bots or something like that. So Blake
Speaker 1: Lively wanted to depose him in Texas. Then he filed
Speaker 1: a seven million dollar lawsuit against her for I think,
Speaker 1: for some type of defamation because she named him in
Speaker 1: the complaint. She didn't name him as a defendant. She
Speaker 1: just named him in the complaint and talked about how
Speaker 1: he was, you know, colluded us.
Speaker 2: On the automation.
Speaker 4: When it's in court, you have the immunity quasi immunity,
Speaker 4: which you know, you're allowed to say things in court
Speaker 4: make those accusations.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Anyway, maybe publicly she also threw it out there or something.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, he's named in this complaint and everybody's
Speaker 1: talking about all these PR people that are all involved
Speaker 1: in these smear campaigns, and so he got pulled into
Speaker 1: this smear campaign against.
Speaker 3: Sure, I want the deposition of Taylor Swift.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, that's interesting you bring that up, because when
Speaker 1: Brian Friedman did this podcast recently, Harry Harvey said to him,
Speaker 1: you're you're clearly going to depose Taylor Swift, right, And
Speaker 1: he said, you know, I don't know. We'll figure that
Speaker 1: out at game time. And Harvey's like, are you kidding me?
Speaker 1: Of course you're going to depose Taylor Swift. She was.
Speaker 1: She was at their home on that January fourth meeting
Speaker 1: when supposedly Ryan Reynolds be rated justin Belton the balcony
Speaker 1: scene or yeah, and apparently you know, she was there
Speaker 1: when they were having the conversation about this balcony scene
Speaker 1: and they were all, you know, gung ho about Blake's
Speaker 1: you know, and everything.
Speaker 2: You think Taylor's sing. What the heck? Why did I
Speaker 2: become friends with her?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I have read some things and this
Speaker 1: is just alleged. I don't know exactly what Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: is thinking, but clearly there's people you know, close to
Speaker 1: Taylor that are saying she's distancing herself from Blake Lively
Speaker 1: and that she doesn't want to be involved in this
Speaker 1: lawsuit and she doesn't want to have anything to.
Speaker 2: Tell with it.
Speaker 4: Taylor Swift should give Blake Lively some advice, and you
Speaker 4: know what that would be, shake it off.
Speaker 2: Shake it off.
Speaker 3: That was a good one, Shane. I didn't even know
Speaker 3: you knew Taylor Swift song.
Speaker 2: I just know that one.
Speaker 3: So there we go.
Speaker 1: Hopefully when they am in a complaint gets file, we
Speaker 1: will do another podcast.
Speaker 4: We will talk about it.
Speaker 1: We will figure out did she add in new causes
Speaker 1: of action? Did she add in new defendants? What's going
Speaker 1: on there?
Speaker 4: When she amends the complaints, then there can be allowed
Speaker 4: a response to those to the new amended causes of action. Okay,
Speaker 4: just to be clear for the listeners.
Speaker 1: All right, So here's some things that have been going
Speaker 1: on in the media with this Blake Lively and Justin
Speaker 1: Baldoni situation. First of all, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw this, but Colleen Hoover is back on Instagram. She
Speaker 1: deactivated her Instagram, I'm sure because she was just getting
Speaker 1: hit with she went on polse.
Speaker 4: Yes she did.
Speaker 3: She is now back.
Speaker 1: But yeah, right, So she's back on Instagram.
Speaker 3: We'll see what happens there.
Speaker 1: I did read in an article that she had removed
Speaker 1: anything that really had to do with Justin or Blake
Speaker 1: or it ends with us. I mean, I'm sure she
Speaker 1: doesn't want to give people an avenue where they can comment. Now,
Speaker 1: if they want to comment, they have to find, you know,
Speaker 1: a picture of Yeah, that would be that would be
Speaker 1: a that would be a series. So Blake Lively right
Speaker 1: litigates with us.
Speaker 3: That's a good one.
Speaker 1: So Blake Lively is now seeking Justin Baldoni's phone records
Speaker 1: to show that there was a smear effort against her.
Speaker 1: This was in a Variety article that came out last night.
Speaker 1: Blake Lively's lawyers sent a subpoena on Wednesday, February thirteenth
Speaker 1: for Justin Baldoni's phone records. Lively's attorneys sent subpoenas to
Speaker 1: three phone carriers, AT and T, Risen and T Mobile
Speaker 1: seeking phone records. What's his meant, No, that that one
Speaker 1: has a protective order? Probably kidding, Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: He's like he gets he's like denied. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 3: know who our cell carrier is. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: They're seeking records pertaining to Baldoni, the producer Jamie Heath,
Speaker 1: who is one of the Wayfarer founders, and billionaire Wayfair
Speaker 1: Studios co founder Steve Sorrowitz. The subpoenas also seek the
Speaker 1: phone records of Abel, she is Wayfarers and Baldoni's publicist.
Speaker 1: She is the one who her phone was confiscated by
Speaker 1: Stephanie Jones, who is.
Speaker 3: Another PR person. There's so much PR people at.
Speaker 4: The suppose it and release it.
Speaker 1: I don't know about that subpoena, but anyway, Jennifer Able
Speaker 1: her phone was confiscated by Stephanie, and then that's how
Speaker 1: they propagated all those text messages that Blake Lively used
Speaker 1: and her complaint and that The New York Times also used,
Speaker 1: and allegedly that's.
Speaker 2: Kind of a little sneaky. There was something going on there, right.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, of course, I mean if you in in
Speaker 1: Justin's complaint, he lays out that she went to the
Speaker 1: to work one day and then she got put into
Speaker 1: a room and there was a security guard there and
Speaker 1: they confiscated her phone and they made her sign all
Speaker 1: these documents and it was her personal cell phone, her
Speaker 1: personal cell phone number. Then Blake Lively gets a hold
Speaker 1: of all these text messages that she uses in her complaints.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't don't ever give up your cell phone.
Speaker 3: No, race is like that. No, you just throw it.
Speaker 1: If anything, they'd start to go for you throw it
Speaker 1: out in the past, so you don't have.
Speaker 2: To give them the cast code.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: The subpoenas seek the phone records Amable and publicist Melissa Nathan.
Speaker 1: Melissa Nathan is the publicist who is the crisis PR
Speaker 1: publicist that Justin Baldoni hired. You know when the movie
Speaker 1: came out. He's hearing that he's been referred to as
Speaker 1: a sexual predator. He hires the same PR crisis management
Speaker 1: team that represented Johnny Depp. So not so he has
Speaker 1: a regular publicist and then he hired this crisis management team.
Speaker 3: So there are so many PR people.
Speaker 4: I know that's the way it's deviating. But do you
Speaker 4: know how much money is being made off of everyone
Speaker 4: outside of this, all the like social media stuff, articles written,
Speaker 4: you know, TV shows or whatever, news casting. Then you
Speaker 4: have all these PR crisis people that are hired. Who
Speaker 4: knows how many therapists are hired. The lawyers are hired, right,
Speaker 4: tons of investigators.
Speaker 2: It creates so much like money.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but but these.
Speaker 1: PR people are all being sued and they're all suing
Speaker 1: each other, so they also have to.
Speaker 3: They're also PR people are hiring PR people, They're hiring.
Speaker 1: Attorneys to defend them. I mean, they're all suing each other.
Speaker 1: It's just it's a mess.
Speaker 2: Send them all to an island.
Speaker 3: So where are we at?
Speaker 1: Lively's lawyers also sent subpoenas to two internet providers, cloud
Speaker 1: Fare and Aol, as well as to Jed Wallace, who
Speaker 1: we talked about earlier. He's the crisis consultant who is
Speaker 1: accused of launching a digital army against Lively on Baldoni's behalf.
Speaker 1: I anticipate that when she files her when Blakely, Blakely,
Speaker 1: Blake Lively, see, I have to say her name so
Speaker 1: many times. I just made it Blakely. When Blake Lively
Speaker 1: files her amendic complaint, she's probably going to add Jed
Speaker 1: Wallace in as a as a new defendant. Brian Friedman,
Speaker 1: Baldoni's attorney, said that Lively is seeking calls, texts, and
Speaker 1: location data stretching back more than two years, and he
Speaker 1: calls it a massive fishing expedition, and it demonstrates that
Speaker 1: they are desperately seeking any factual basis for their provably
Speaker 1: false claims and that they will find none. And I
Speaker 1: know he is working on a platform. We're talking about
Speaker 1: Brian Friedman, we're talking about Justin's attorney. He is working
Speaker 1: on a platform of transparency.
Speaker 3: So that's been their thing the whole.
Speaker 4: That's my means, I got nothing to hide. Let's get
Speaker 4: it all out there on the table.
Speaker 1: Right, And that was the whole point of their website
Speaker 1: was to say, look, our hands are clean. Here's everything.
Speaker 1: We're not hiding anything. Here's all the messages to.
Speaker 4: The other end, here's all the crap that Blake is doing,
Speaker 4: so have at it.
Speaker 1: So Justin Baldoni, there was a recent podcast he was
Speaker 1: actually the podcast was actually taped before the Blake Lively
Speaker 1: court filing. It was taped back in November. I don't
Speaker 1: know why they held onto it so long, but it
Speaker 1: just got released a couple days ago, so I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they recorded it and they always
Speaker 1: had the intent of holding onto it this long, or
Speaker 1: it just worked out that way. But anyway, he appeared
Speaker 1: on an episode of the Gents Talk podcast. It was
Speaker 1: released on Monday, February tenth. The installment was filmed back
Speaker 1: in November of twenty twenty four, which is a month
Speaker 1: before or Lively filed a lawsuit against her ends with
Speaker 1: US co star and director. He says, quote, this morning,
Speaker 1: I sent a text message to my best friend Jamie.
Speaker 1: Jamie's involved in way Ferirr. He was a producer on
Speaker 1: the movie, and the president of my company, Tara, and
Speaker 1: I told them that I wasn't in the best place,
Speaker 1: Baldoni said on the podcast. I told him that I
Speaker 1: was exhausted and that I haven't given myself time to
Speaker 1: recover or time to heal. Clearly, on this podcast, he
Speaker 1: doesn't go into any details about what's going on in
Speaker 1: his life, and at that time, I'm sure the interviewer.
Speaker 3: Doesn't know to ask more.
Speaker 1: Questions because they don't know exactly what he's making reference too.
Speaker 1: But now we know, I'm sure he's making reference to
Speaker 1: the year and a half of hell that he had
Speaker 1: to deal with.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's talk about the regular stuff. Have they been
Speaker 3: in court yet together? They haven't any. No, they haven't
Speaker 3: made an appearance.
Speaker 2: Together when they both have to go.
Speaker 4: Well, here's my thought on stuff like that. And you
Speaker 4: know what the Amber heard Johnny Depp stuff.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's going to get that far.
Speaker 4: It may not, but you think it's it'll settle. I
Speaker 4: think someone will drop it.
Speaker 1: I think it has to settle. Because do you think
Speaker 1: that Blake Lively wants to be deposed by Brian Friedman?
Speaker 4: I know she doesn't want to take two parties, so
Speaker 4: she can offer all she wants. He'd have to accept.
Speaker 4: And I'm I'm speculating.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I would think that he might be like, hell with this, No,
Speaker 4: we're going to court like Johnny Depp did. Johnny Depp
Speaker 4: wasn't trying to get two million bucks or whatever. He
Speaker 4: was trying to say, I'm clean, she's nasty, she pooped
Speaker 4: on my pillow and I was making a movie, right
Speaker 4: or whatever?
Speaker 2: He does right right.
Speaker 1: Well, you know that's interesting because they also in that
Speaker 1: podcast that Brian Friedman just did, they said, you know,
Speaker 1: would you be would you be willing to settle?
Speaker 4: Wow?
Speaker 3: And he doesn't say yes or no. He's very smart
Speaker 3: in his wording.
Speaker 1: Of course, but he says, look, this is about a
Speaker 1: man's reputation. He's been referred to as a sexual predator.
Speaker 1: And does the settlement mean hey, let's just figure this
Speaker 1: all out and let's back out. But does it also
Speaker 1: mean are you going to publicly say right?
Speaker 4: Because if they settle and the terms are kept private,
Speaker 4: then everyone's gonna think, oh, everyone's dirty or whatever. No
Speaker 4: one wants anything exposed, like Johnny Depp. But if he
Speaker 4: says no, let's go to court and let's expose it all, let's.
Speaker 2: Clear my name.
Speaker 4: Plus, if his reputation and his business is suffering, then
Speaker 4: he may need the money to offset his losses. And
Speaker 4: if he's suing for four hundred or whatever, you think
Speaker 4: they're going to cough up anywhere near that.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's suing the New York Times too for defamation,
Speaker 1: So I.
Speaker 3: Mean he's he's.
Speaker 1: Asking for a lot of money out there. He's suing
Speaker 1: up Blake or a set.
Speaker 4: I always included a written statement too, yeah, which I
Speaker 4: don't know if that's enough.
Speaker 3: Does a written statement? Is that enough to cure the
Speaker 3: fact that.
Speaker 4: Someone provided facts, like you know, clarification of them? But no,
Speaker 4: So I hope he takes it all the way because
Speaker 4: I want some good court TV.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you want to see well, it's in federal court,
Speaker 1: so I don't know do they film. I know state courts.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they if it's going to end
Speaker 1: up on television. Like Johnny Depteck was a state court.
Speaker 1: That's a different.
Speaker 2: Are they all federal courts all all these cases?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're all in they've all been. They're all in
Speaker 3: New York now.
Speaker 1: So he dismissed his action against The New York Times
Speaker 1: in California. That's why he amended the complaint. And now
Speaker 1: in the New York filing, he added New York Times
Speaker 1: into that amended complaint.
Speaker 3: So it's all in the same court. Now.
Speaker 4: On another thing, I want to bring up, which I'm
Speaker 4: probably throwing you off, that video that came out where
Speaker 4: she says she just does whatever to get the job
Speaker 4: and she acts like an actor. That's then I get
Speaker 4: in and I infiltrate. Yes, that's oh my gosh. She
Speaker 4: is terrible, she is nasty. She's an idiot for saying
Speaker 4: that she is an idiot. What year was that?
Speaker 3: That was in twenty twenty two, so that was idio.
Speaker 4: Prior to her, she thought she was so smart, like,
Speaker 4: she's clever like and then I get in and I
Speaker 4: just do.
Speaker 2: Whatever I want. Well, let me get into that and anything.
Speaker 1: I could finish that video, all right, and here that's
Speaker 1: next on my In a resurface interview from the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two Forbes Power Our Women's Summit, Lively said just
Speaker 1: following direction as an actress was not fulfilling for her,
Speaker 1: and that.
Speaker 4: She's received to be nasty on top of it that
Speaker 4: filling for me, and that.
Speaker 1: She has received backlash for stepping in and trying to
Speaker 1: be a part of costume design, writing and other aspects
Speaker 1: of a project.
Speaker 2: How would you want to do that?
Speaker 4: I get paid twenty million dollars to act. I'm not
Speaker 4: going to go above and beyond.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to act because at that point, it's
Speaker 1: an ego. It's not about actually doing your job and
Speaker 1: staying within the scope of your employee.
Speaker 4: I want to be bigger in Hollywood, right, you want
Speaker 4: to be like, I'm a big executive producer on this
Speaker 4: that now I'm going to do another movie?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: She said she has had writers, producers, and directors welcome
Speaker 1: that and invite that, but she's also had others who
Speaker 1: resented her for stepping on toes. She also said she
Speaker 1: hasn't always been upfront with her plans to step into
Speaker 1: other parts of a project where she has where she
Speaker 1: was just hired as the actress, and that she wouldn't
Speaker 1: reveal that I actually need to have authorship in order
Speaker 1: to feel for filled. Sometimes that might have felt like
Speaker 1: a rug being pulled out from under, you know. And
Speaker 1: she admits that, she says, I'll I'll just pretend like
Speaker 1: I'm gonna look cute, and I'll just stand here on
Speaker 1: this mark because I'm the actress and I'm just doing that.
Speaker 1: But really her intent is she wants to be involved
Speaker 1: in the writing and she wants to be involved in
Speaker 1: the costume And all I could think about when I
Speaker 1: watched that video was that is exactly what she did
Speaker 1: with this movie. Her first step was she took over costumes,
Speaker 1: which was not a great step. That is where they
Speaker 1: should have immediately been like, you don't know what you're
Speaker 1: doing with this movie. You need to get your hands
Speaker 1: out of the cookie jar. This wardrobe is a disaster.
Speaker 1: No one reading this book pictured this woman dressing like
Speaker 1: this or looking like this, and that's really where she
Speaker 1: should have been roped back in. But you know what,
Speaker 1: people from this whole scenario from beginning to end, and
Speaker 1: all the text messages and all the complaints and everything
Speaker 1: I've read, it tells a story. And the story is
Speaker 1: this is a woman and along with Ryan Reynolds, and
Speaker 1: I've said this before or they are surrounded by yes people,
Speaker 1: and that is the problem with them.
Speaker 3: There is no one like You're a no person, right,
Speaker 3: you are?
Speaker 1: Like I would say when people are like, oh, you've
Speaker 1: been on TV for a long time, but you really
Speaker 1: haven't changed.
Speaker 3: I have. I can't because my husband tells.
Speaker 1: Me every day that I am not a star, that
Speaker 1: I am not famous, that I am not special, that
Speaker 1: I am a mom.
Speaker 3: I need to go make some chicken nuggets in the kitchen.
Speaker 1: You're a civilian. I am a civil person. I am
Speaker 1: a regular person. He tells me that daily, and I
Speaker 1: have remained humble.
Speaker 2: I'm the star.
Speaker 3: Yes, I know, you are the star. I got it.
Speaker 3: But the problem with Blake Lively.
Speaker 1: And Ryan Reynolds is that everyone walks on eggshells around them,
Speaker 1: and everyone is a yes person around them.
Speaker 2: Her attorneys are yes people.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: Her attorneys are like oh yeah, yeah, yeah, well we
Speaker 4: got this, we got this, Okay, you know, give us
Speaker 4: a blank check. Right, and then when those attorneys go
Speaker 4: in public and they do the little uh you know,
Speaker 4: press conference, and they say, we will fight this to
Speaker 4: the end. No, we will fight this so long as
Speaker 4: she keeps us and the until they those checks stop coming,
Speaker 4: then we will not.
Speaker 2: Fight it anymore. And that's all that. That means.
Speaker 3: They don't really whether she's guilty or not. I mean
Speaker 3: they should if she hires them, they should defend her obviously,
Speaker 3: but there it's all about the money.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, they're getting paid regardless of whether she has
Speaker 1: a great case or whether she has a crappy case.
Speaker 3: I mean, it makes no different exactly. You know how
Speaker 3: much her bills are because you know they call all
Speaker 3: like Lively and Reynolds are like constantly like here's another email,
Speaker 3: here's this now I wanted to mend it.
Speaker 2: When can we do this?
Speaker 4: And you know they're just taking it's going to be
Speaker 4: seven figures like big time.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah absolutely. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: I don't think she wants to go to trials. So
Speaker 1: how do they get out of this?
Speaker 4: Well, if if you say she has this ego, she
Speaker 4: may not settle, but.
Speaker 1: She's already I have read and I'm sure it's true,
Speaker 1: but allegedly she does not want Brian Friedman to depose her.
Speaker 1: She wants if she has to be deposed, she wants
Speaker 1: someone else. It doesn't work like that. Brian Friedman is
Speaker 1: going to depose.
Speaker 3: Her, and let's talk about depositions really quickly.
Speaker 4: But her ego is going to be the death of
Speaker 4: her if it's as you say, and as Kenny Rogers says,
Speaker 4: he had no one to fold them, and he got
Speaker 4: no one to hold them. Yeah, and she's got a fold.
Speaker 4: But when your ego is there, you hold out maybe
Speaker 4: just maybe maybe maybe I'll win, Maybe I'll win, and
Speaker 4: then you don't.
Speaker 1: I just want to talk about just quickly, like depositions.
Speaker 1: She does not want to be deposed.
Speaker 3: Well, explain what a deposition is, the basic structure of it.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, so basic structure would be Brian Friedman. He
Speaker 1: can't wait to do Discovery. This man is like chomping
Speaker 1: at the bank. He wants to do Discovery right now,
Speaker 1: and he wants to He wants to depose everyone and
Speaker 1: anyone that's on set that has anything to say. The actors,
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift, Ryan Reynolds.
Speaker 3: I mean, this guy's chalking the.
Speaker 2: Deposition, they sit down and they get to do Q
Speaker 2: and A.
Speaker 4: They get asked all kinds of questions, right, and the
Speaker 4: questions can be they don't have to just be about
Speaker 4: direct evidence, because it could be a question that my
Speaker 4: lead to evidence. So they can ask all kinds of
Speaker 4: questions about her relationship with Taylor Swift. And then if
Speaker 4: she says the wrong thing, then like she starts to
Speaker 4: open up the door to certain text messages, then they
Speaker 4: might be able to subpoena Taylor Swift's cell phone carriers
Speaker 4: and blah blah blah. So it can get really bad.
Speaker 4: And then in work comp when we do depositions, sometimes
Speaker 4: like they'll claim like erectile dysfunction, right, And then you're
Speaker 4: like that's good because now in the deposition I get
Speaker 4: asked them about all their sex life. And then usually
Speaker 4: people are like, I don't want to talk about this
Speaker 4: really because you made a complaint, you filed and said
Speaker 4: you had ed so I got to figure out, you know,
Speaker 4: what gets you off and what doesn't and why it's
Speaker 4: not happening. And I'm telling you I've seen people they
Speaker 4: ask them really deep because then the person's like, forget it.
Speaker 3: Forget it, forget it, and they'll either drop it or
Speaker 3: be quick to settle. Right.
Speaker 1: And also in a deposition there isn't a judge there
Speaker 1: where your side can object. The only thing really that
Speaker 1: you can object to is anything has to do with privilege.
Speaker 4: Well, you can object, you can you can object to
Speaker 4: hear say and all the regular ones, but they still
Speaker 4: have to answer the question. So you object in a
Speaker 4: deposition to preserve it for when it goes to court
Speaker 4: to be inadmissible. But so a lot of times when
Speaker 4: we've done depositions, like their attorney will be like objection
Speaker 4: and then the person's like thinking, oh, I don't have
Speaker 4: to answer the question. Their attorney looks a him and goes, no,
Speaker 4: you still got to answer the question. They're like what
Speaker 4: They're like, no, that's just preserving my objection for court. Right,
Speaker 4: So you can get really deep.
Speaker 1: I would want to be a fly on the wall
Speaker 1: if Brian Friedman has the opportunity.
Speaker 4: And they might try to video it.
Speaker 3: That is true.
Speaker 1: It would be on camera, yes, absolutely, And I don't
Speaker 1: know about media rules with depositions and recording it, but
Speaker 1: knowing Brian Friedman and his concept of transparency, ye, it'll
Speaker 1: be like live stream.
Speaker 3: On the website.
Speaker 1: But we're going to move on and we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about a new case because this is a very
Speaker 1: interesting case. A lot of people have been invested in this.
Speaker 1: It is the Karen Reid case. Now Karen Reid is
Speaker 1: going to go on trial again on April first, so
Speaker 1: I wanted to do a quick just synopsis background. Her
Speaker 1: first trial was a hung jury, so she is now
Speaker 1: being retried and she goes a trial on April first.
Speaker 1: So I know that there's going to be a media
Speaker 1: storm around this trial and everybody's going to be invested
Speaker 1: in it. So I wanted to take this time that
Speaker 1: we can do kind of a background into the case,
Speaker 1: the facts, where we're at, so we can all be
Speaker 1: on the same page, so that when it start, the
Speaker 1: trial starts April first, and we can follow it all.
Speaker 2: Right, So what are the charges? It's criminal, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: So John O'Keefe had been an officer with the Boston
Speaker 1: Police Department for sixteen years when he died January twenty ninth.
Speaker 1: On twenty twenty two, he had been dating Reid. This
Speaker 1: is Karen Reid, and she was an equity analysis at
Speaker 1: Fidelity Investments for two years. According to the Norfolk County
Speaker 1: Assistant District Attorney Adam Lawley, troubles in the couple's relationship
Speaker 1: appeared to intensify in the months before O'Keeffe's death, which
Speaker 1: included during a New Year's trip to Aruba. Apparently, there's
Speaker 1: text messages and voicemails that start to show that they
Speaker 1: that their relationship was deteriorating.
Speaker 2: Who are these people? Are they regular people?
Speaker 1: They're just regular people. But he's a he's a police officer.
Speaker 1: And this is his girlfriend, Karen Reid. And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you this case is. People are very invested in this case.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you why this. Let me go through
Speaker 1: it in the way.
Speaker 2: What's the crime.
Speaker 3: I'm getting there.
Speaker 2: Just start with the crime.
Speaker 3: I'm just giving you a background of who the people are.
Speaker 1: He's an officer, this is the girlfriend. On January twenty
Speaker 1: eighth and twenty twenty two, Reed's defense lawyer, David Yanetti
Speaker 1: claims that the couple seem fine while they were out
Speaker 1: at a bar in a Boston suburb. They're at out
Speaker 1: at a bar with other current and former law enforcement officers.
Speaker 1: After leaving the bar, Read later told first responders that
Speaker 1: she had argued with O'Keeffe before dropping him off at
Speaker 1: an after party at the home of Brian Albert, who
Speaker 1: is a now retired Boston sergeant who had also been
Speaker 1: at the bar. The next morning, Reed's lawyers have said
Speaker 1: that she went out looking for her boyfriend.
Speaker 3: She couldn't find him. She wakes up at like four
Speaker 3: in the morning, and she realizes he's not home.
Speaker 2: So he spent the night I know.
Speaker 3: No, he did not spend the night. He got dropped
Speaker 3: off at a party. This is what she claims.
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, she.
Speaker 1: Claims that she dropped him off at a party. They
Speaker 1: went to a bar. They're inebriated, they're drinking, she drops
Speaker 1: him off, she's driving. Clearly, she's drove him to a house.
Speaker 4: I'm already not believing this story. They went to a
Speaker 4: party or a bar or whatever. Yes, I had a
Speaker 4: bunch of drinks, her girlfriend and boyfriend, and then she
Speaker 4: drops him off somewhere. They don't go home together, They
Speaker 4: don't spend more time together.
Speaker 1: No, Apparently she drops him off at a home that
Speaker 1: was having an after party and the home is owned
Speaker 1: by a former police officer.
Speaker 2: Okay, and she doesn't go to the party no.
Speaker 1: She leaves and goes home, sure and passes out or whatever.
Speaker 1: Then she wakes up at like four in the morning.
Speaker 4: He's already not believable.
Speaker 1: Okay, why can I tell what hydern I even got
Speaker 1: through the facts the case?
Speaker 2: Yelty, Okay, go ahead, sorry.
Speaker 1: Anyway, she wakes up, she realizes that she can't find him.
Speaker 1: He never came home that morning. She she has some
Speaker 1: friend that goes with her. They drive around, they go
Speaker 1: back to the house, and she spots his body outside
Speaker 1: of the home on the morning of January twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: and then one of the women dialed nine to one
Speaker 1: to one.
Speaker 3: Oh, Keith, this is.
Speaker 4: Okay, I know I got to ask these questions though,
Speaker 4: So she gets her friends says, let's go look for
Speaker 4: my boyfriend.
Speaker 2: Yes, okay.
Speaker 4: Why is she suspicious the boyfriend's missing because she text
Speaker 4: him and he doesn't respond because he never came home,
Speaker 4: so he didn't fall through whatever his routine was, and
Speaker 4: he's missing.
Speaker 3: He's missing, so he's not there. So she gets up.
Speaker 3: It's early in the morning.
Speaker 4: They drive I need to go get an alibi. So
Speaker 4: she's like, hey, come with me to find my boyfriend.
Speaker 4: He's on this lawn over there. Sorry, this is pretty obvious. Okay,
Speaker 4: keep going. I don't know why I was ungury Okay,
Speaker 4: go ahead, sorry you.
Speaker 2: Are okay, go ahead, Karen read.
Speaker 3: All right, So you got me all confused.
Speaker 2: She went and found him on the lawn or something.
Speaker 1: Yes, at like six am, they called nine to one
Speaker 1: one the police calm, he's pronounced dead. They take him
Speaker 1: to the hospital. He's pronounced dead at seven fifty am.
Speaker 1: At the hospital, the medical examiner attributed his cause of
Speaker 1: death to blunt force trauma to the head. Blunt force
Speaker 1: trauma to.
Speaker 2: The head, trauma to the rest.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the head, Yes, it could be to like your
Speaker 1: your chest, your Yeah.
Speaker 2: If she wants to kill him, she's gonna hit him
Speaker 2: in the head.
Speaker 1: Okay, in hypothermia. So, Reid was charged with manslaughter, motor
Speaker 1: vehicle homicide, and leaving the scene of a deadly crash.
Speaker 1: The prosecution alleges that Reid backed her Lexus SUV into
Speaker 1: O'Keefe outside of the home, causing a skull fracture and
Speaker 1: brain bleed, and that she left him there to die.
Speaker 3: Yeah, as a prosecution, right, that's a different story.
Speaker 1: Basically, they got into a fight and she's aee breed
Speaker 1: and he's a nee breed, and she's in the car
Speaker 1: and she's pissed off and she backs over him and
Speaker 1: then leaves him there. Okay, story, that's the prosecution story.
Speaker 1: Even though Reid said she dropped O'Keefe off at Albert home,
Speaker 1: the assistant DA said that no one at the after
Speaker 1: party recalled seeing O'Keeffe inside.
Speaker 3: See.
Speaker 1: That was interesting to me because she claims that she
Speaker 1: dropped him off at this house.
Speaker 3: There's all these people at a party.
Speaker 4: That was one of my first questions, except he kept
Speaker 4: telling me not to ask questions. Was she drops off?
Speaker 4: She claims to drop him off at a party where
Speaker 4: there's all these witnesses. Ridiculous.
Speaker 2: She was an idiot.
Speaker 4: She should have said I dropped him off, like on
Speaker 4: the corner where he wanted to walk or something.
Speaker 2: Okay, But there's no witnesses.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: So this is where it gets moundy for me, because
Speaker 1: I don't understand why if he went inside the house,
Speaker 1: there's witnesses that can't confirm that he's ever inside this house.
Speaker 2: But of course he didn't go inside the house.
Speaker 3: You don't think he ever went sie?
Speaker 4: Sorry, newsflash, No, No, she dumped him on the lawn
Speaker 4: at what time, I don't know, after she ran him over.
Speaker 4: Whatever she did, she puts him on the lawn at
Speaker 4: the party. The party's probably over by now, or she
Speaker 4: put them on the lawn hoping someone from the party
Speaker 4: would see him. They clearly didn't. And then she grabbed
Speaker 4: her friend as a witness so the friend could testify like, oh,
Speaker 4: I don't know, we were driving around, we found them,
Speaker 4: she didn't touch them.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's get back to the facts.
Speaker 1: I like, how you figure this, figured this whole case
Speaker 1: out before you could.
Speaker 2: Get through it, and I need to be on the jury.
Speaker 1: Yeah they was, Yeah, okay, they claim. So people in
Speaker 1: this home claim that they saw the suv pull up
Speaker 1: to the house then leave, and they assumed no one
Speaker 1: from the vehicle was joining them. But vehicle data from
Speaker 1: Reed's suv showed that at twelve forty five am, while
Speaker 1: outside of Albert this is the other police officer at home,
Speaker 1: the Lexus Trevel traveled backward for sixty feet at twenty
Speaker 1: four miles per hour.
Speaker 3: This is what the prosecution played.
Speaker 4: Don't realize your car documents a lot. It's called an
Speaker 4: OBD two sensor. It's not surprised her that you know,
Speaker 4: regulated and all cars have them.
Speaker 3: Does my car know how many times I've been through
Speaker 3: McDonald's drive through? That's what I want to know.
Speaker 4: Yes, it senses the egg mcmuffins and it reports it
Speaker 4: to me. I have an app, no really, that has
Speaker 4: an OBD two sensor and it documents. So if you
Speaker 4: hard breaks air bags and a miles per hour, it
Speaker 4: can I don't think GPS so much. That might be some,
Speaker 4: but that's not required.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me go on with the prosecution side, and
Speaker 1: then we'll get into the defense. The SUV's tail light
Speaker 1: was broken, and pieces of the light from the tail
Speaker 1: light were later found outside of Albert's home.
Speaker 4: And tail lights can be very distinctive, like sometimes they
Speaker 4: have veins on them and stuff, so they can really
Speaker 4: know which tail light, like which car goes to.
Speaker 1: Okay, again, this is just the prosecution, so we're going
Speaker 1: to get to the defense. The forensic testing showed that
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's hair was found on the vehicle's bumper and his
Speaker 1: DNA was found on the tail light. Investigators also found
Speaker 1: the remnants of a cocktail that appears to have been
Speaker 1: build on the bumper.
Speaker 3: The prosecutor said.
Speaker 2: She's built her cocktail. Oh or it probably is, huh.
Speaker 1: O'Keefe was captured on video leaving the bar with a
Speaker 1: cocktail in his hand, and bits of what the prosecutor
Speaker 1: described as a drinking glass were found in the SUV's bumper.
Speaker 3: All right, let's get to the defense. The defense. Yes,
Speaker 3: there's always a defense. There was a hung jury. There's
Speaker 3: clearly a defense.
Speaker 1: Reed's lawyers developed a theory that Karen Reid did drop
Speaker 1: off O'Keefe at the party, after which O'Keefe got into
Speaker 1: a fight with someone at the party and was attacked
Speaker 1: by the family dog. Because apparently there were scratches all
Speaker 1: over his arms that aren't consistent with someone running over him.
Speaker 1: Reed's defense brought in experts to say that O'Keefe's wounds
Speaker 1: were consistent with a dog bite from a dog the
Speaker 1: size of the one that lived at that home, who
Speaker 1: had a history of biting people. And even if the
Speaker 1: police didn't engage in a cover up, that's what they claimed.
Speaker 1: They claimed because these people at this home were all
Speaker 1: a lot of them were officers. It was at an
Speaker 1: officer's home that this was a police cover up, that
Speaker 1: maybe he got inside the house, he was there. Everybody's drunk.
Speaker 1: He's drunk, he gets in a fight. He has blunt
Speaker 1: forced trauma to the head because he got in a
Speaker 1: fight with somebody.
Speaker 2: Theory as someone else beat him up and killed them.
Speaker 2: Their theory.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and they all wanted to cover up because they're men.
Speaker 1: They're all conspiring because they're protecting each other. And that's
Speaker 1: her theory.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that on this phone doesn't have a ring camera
Speaker 4: or something. Man, that would solve a lot of problems.
Speaker 3: Right at the house. Yeah, aren't there neighbors that have
Speaker 3: a ring camera?
Speaker 1: Like someone's got we've got cameras on this house, Like
Speaker 1: someone's got to have cameras somewhere these days. So this
Speaker 1: is interesting. So the lead investigator in this case texted
Speaker 1: inappropriate comments about Karen Reid to others, to like his
Speaker 1: high school friends, his sister. Three different prosecution witnesses testified
Speaker 1: that at crucial times, including the night of the killing,
Speaker 1: their calls back and forth to each other were inadvertent
Speaker 1: butt dials. So basically, there's these calls between these officers
Speaker 1: the night that this happens. But they're saying, oh, these
Speaker 1: were just accidental calls, like They weren't conspiring. They weren't saying,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, we've got to come up with this
Speaker 1: story to say that you know, she ran over him.
Speaker 3: They don't have the content of the call. They just
Speaker 3: have phone logs.
Speaker 1: They just have phone logs, and like one calls a
Speaker 1: couple seconds, the other one's like twenty two seconds. So
Speaker 1: you know, that's the defense saying that they're the.
Speaker 4: Calls are probably did you hear that car crash? It's
Speaker 4: sound like she ran over someone. What's that tail light
Speaker 4: over there?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: So the lead investigator in this case, he's state Trooper
Speaker 1: Michael Proctor. He's a Massachusetts State police trooper that led
Speaker 1: the investigation in this car case. No, his name's Proctor,
Speaker 1: Michael Proctor. He's the lead investigator. Oh okay, he's a trooper,
Speaker 1: a police State police trooper. Karen Reid's lawyers said that
Speaker 1: Proctor's investigation was biased, and they accused him of failing
Speaker 1: to pursue other potential suspects and not disclosing his relationship
Speaker 1: with the family, the Albert family, which is where this occurred.
Speaker 1: So he has a relationship with the guy that owns right,
Speaker 1: he's the lead investigator.
Speaker 2: That's a fair that's a fair concern. Right.
Speaker 1: So the defense is saying, look, not only is he's
Speaker 1: sending inappropriate you know text that have to do with
Speaker 1: this case. He called her a like a whack job,
Speaker 1: and he said he texted.
Speaker 2: Like sure, he called her all kinds of things.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And he also said like when he was.
Speaker 2: Going through a killer called her that.
Speaker 3: Well, he called her a whack job.
Speaker 1: He also made reference to like going through her phone
Speaker 1: and saying, oh, I couldn't find any news.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, I agree with the arguments biased and
Speaker 4: it's a conflict of interests that doesn't negate my findings.
Speaker 4: She's guilty.
Speaker 3: You're so convinced she's.
Speaker 4: Gold, right, they definitely you definitely need someone more neutral, right,
Speaker 4: And that's a shame, Okay.
Speaker 1: So in her first trial, So during this is Michael
Speaker 1: Proctor again.
Speaker 2: Wait when was the first trial?
Speaker 3: So this trial, her.
Speaker 1: First trial took place in twenty twenty four, So Michael
Speaker 1: Proctor again, he is the lead investigator. And during his
Speaker 1: testimony during the trial, Proctor read through a text conversation
Speaker 1: that he had with a group of friends he'd known
Speaker 1: since childhood on the evening of January twenty ninth, which
Speaker 1: is the day O'Keefe died. After some discussion, a friend
Speaker 1: wrote back, in this text, this group text, I'm sure
Speaker 1: the owner of the house will receive some shit. Proctor responded, Nope,
Speaker 1: the homeowner is a Boston cop too, So he's saying
Speaker 1: in this text message, this guy doesn't anything to worry
Speaker 1: about because he's a Boston cop, basically implying that he's
Speaker 1: going to be protected.
Speaker 3: So this came out during the trial.
Speaker 1: He also told his friend that read waffled O'Keefe waffled.
Speaker 1: I guess that means just is that like literal? Like
Speaker 1: it looked like a waffle.
Speaker 3: I don't know what mean.
Speaker 2: That's what he said.
Speaker 3: Verb it is now waffle is a verb? He waffled,
Speaker 3: or she waffled.
Speaker 1: O'Keefe's body, who was banged up and he saw it
Speaker 1: at the hospital. When a friend asked, is she hot?
Speaker 1: At least, Proctor replied, from all accounts, he didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong. She's a whack job.
Speaker 3: Then spelled out a vulgar word for a woman, which
Speaker 3: we can all guess what that vulgar word is. It
Speaker 3: starts with the sea, ends in a cat. Yes, cat,
Speaker 3: I love that your micros.
Speaker 1: Read's attorney objected and said, these are your words, and
Speaker 1: then the judge said, these are your words, Trooper Proctor,
Speaker 1: and he had him say the C word out loud,
Speaker 1: which it's not cat, it's the cun t word. Proctor continued,
Speaker 1: She's a babe weird fall River accent, though then added
Speaker 1: a disparaging comment about her rear. So clearly this is
Speaker 1: the lead investigator. He's making He's there's these text messages
Speaker 1: where he's completely inappropriate. He's talking about how because the
Speaker 1: guy who owned the house where this where this death occurred,
Speaker 1: that he won't be in any trouble because he's a
Speaker 1: Boston police officer. So basically that's enough for it. Now
Speaker 1: this guy has to go to these disciplinary hearings. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and he's removed from the case. He's been to two
Speaker 1: disciplinary hearings. He has another hearing on March thirteenth, so
Speaker 1: we'll see what happened.
Speaker 4: A quick question, so, as a hung jury, do we
Speaker 4: know how many voted or how they casted theirs?
Speaker 1: I don't know, But what came out later was that
Speaker 1: the jury was unanimous on two of the counts, but
Speaker 1: that was not made public, and I don't think the
Speaker 1: judge do that. So what what her defense is trying
Speaker 1: to do now currently is to get those two charges
Speaker 1: dismissed because during that original trial, he's saying, throw those
Speaker 1: two charges out because the jury was unanimous that she
Speaker 1: wasn't guilty on those two charges.
Speaker 4: When they have a second trial, because there's a little
Speaker 4: bit of tainting on this investigation, I do agree that
Speaker 4: it's unfortunately biased. Whether it affected the investigation or not,
Speaker 4: it's still not a good look. Do they have a
Speaker 4: new investigator, do they do anything different or do they
Speaker 4: present the same evidence?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but that is a very good question,
Speaker 1: and that is something that we'll have to talk about
Speaker 1: again when this trial starts April first.
Speaker 3: How they're going to proceed for.
Speaker 4: I always think I don't I don't have the experience,
Speaker 4: but I certainly a second trial after Hungary is always
Speaker 4: a little weird because they do it's a different delivery. Yeah, well,
Speaker 4: when you almost should just get a new jury and
Speaker 4: just have them watch the trial the original trials. They've
Speaker 4: the can come up with a different response. I don't know,
Speaker 4: because sometimes it happens. I've read in cases they can't
Speaker 4: recall the top of my head. But the second case, well,
Speaker 4: the second trial will not have this evidence. Oh it
Speaker 4: was the Menendez one.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: It was like, I G that was you that I
Speaker 4: was talking about that I was trying to say.
Speaker 1: I was like, yes, the second trial and Mendez was
Speaker 1: completely different.
Speaker 3: It's terrible, it's completely different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they didn't allow like ninety percent of the evidence
Speaker 1: or the testimony to add to do with the alleged
Speaker 1: abuse and all that.
Speaker 2: Well that's one reason why.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, that's the risk you take with the jury.
Speaker 4: But with a judge, you'll never have a.
Speaker 3: Hung jury, hung judge, no, you won't. Not to be
Speaker 3: taken out of context, right exactly, Okay, all right.
Speaker 1: So on June twenty eighth, twenty twenty four, this is
Speaker 1: during her first trial, juror sent a note to Judge
Speaker 1: Canoni telling her that they are deadlocked. The judge responded
Speaker 1: that she did not believe that they had deliberated long
Speaker 1: enough and asked them to continue trying to reach a verdict. Then,
Speaker 1: on July first, twenty twenty four, the jury sent another
Speaker 1: note to the judge for a second time, telling her
Speaker 1: that they are unable to reach an unanimous verdict. The
Speaker 1: jury said they are deeply divided, and the judge asked
Speaker 1: them to return for one final round of deliberations. Later
Speaker 1: in the day, a mistrial was declared due to the
Speaker 1: hung jury. Hours after the mistrial was declared, Massachusetts State
Speaker 1: Police announced that Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in
Speaker 1: the case, has been relieved of duty.
Speaker 3: So he's removed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now we're going to.
Speaker 3: Get to the retrials.
Speaker 1: So the state's top court ruled that Karen Reid can
Speaker 1: be retried on all the same charges and the death
Speaker 1: of her Boston Police officer boyfriend. Prosecutors have sought to
Speaker 1: retry Read this year on charges of second degree murder, manslaughter,
Speaker 1: and leaving the scene of a crime. So Karen Reid's attorney,
Speaker 1: Martin Weinberg, argued that five jurors later said that they
Speaker 1: were deadlocked only on the manslaughter count and that they
Speaker 1: had unanimously agreed in the jury room that she was
Speaker 1: not guilty of the charges of second degree murder and
Speaker 1: leaving the scene, but they had they had never divulged
Speaker 1: that to the judge.
Speaker 4: I don't have the experience, but the whole hung jury
Speaker 4: and a second trial, second jury, it just never sat right.
Speaker 4: With me, it's like and then when the judges and
Speaker 4: I get that they they're not doing the wrong thing.
Speaker 4: But when they're like, no, go back in there and
Speaker 4: figure it out, because it's kind of like, oh, you're honor.
Speaker 4: Six of us, you know, think he's guilty and the
Speaker 4: other six don't. Oh well, go back in there until
Speaker 4: you change your minds. I mean, it's it's just and
Speaker 4: then you get a second jury. And then in this case,
Speaker 4: I get the argument which is like, look, you know,
Speaker 4: a jury of his peers, her peers has found out
Speaker 4: that she's not guilty on these two things, so they
Speaker 4: shouldn't be retried. I totally get that, But then you're
Speaker 4: can have a different jury talking about different It's just
Speaker 4: so flippant, and I.
Speaker 2: Don't like that. But I know that, you know, I
Speaker 2: don't know what the answer would be.
Speaker 1: So so Weinberg argued and the appeal that trying her
Speaker 1: again would amount to double jeopardy and urge the court
Speaker 1: to allow on evidentiary hearing where jurors could be asked
Speaker 1: whether they had reached final not guilty verdicts on any.
Speaker 3: Of the charges.
Speaker 4: That's right, double jeopardy because if they're found if a
Speaker 4: jury found them not guilty, found her not guilty on
Speaker 4: two things, and they say, okay, yeah, but we're gonna
Speaker 4: go have a net. We're going to charge you again, right,
Speaker 4: We're going to prosecute you again, right on the same
Speaker 4: because double jeopardy is on the same set of facts
Speaker 4: and the same crime, not just the same crime, the
Speaker 4: same set of facts. And in this case there are
Speaker 4: no new real facts as to the alleged crime.
Speaker 1: So she's going to go back to trial again on ape. Well, first,
Speaker 1: I don't think they've determined whether she's going to be
Speaker 1: retried on all three charges or just on the one.
Speaker 1: I think that that is still the one being aslaughter,
Speaker 1: the one being manslaughter.
Speaker 4: I find out in due time. Yes, how old is
Speaker 4: Karen read by the way, how old are these people?
Speaker 3: Well? Do you want to know if she's hot and what?
Speaker 4: But I also I just want to know what they're like, like,
Speaker 4: do they have kids? How loo they've been together?
Speaker 2: Is this a crime of passion?
Speaker 1: It is? Right, Well, it's a crime of alcohol too. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what happens when everybody.
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's crime passion, but it was
Speaker 4: between two lovers, two lovers.
Speaker 1: Yes, Okay, so she's going to go back to trial
Speaker 1: April first. But the judges ruled that she's going to
Speaker 1: go back and they're going to deliberate all three charges,
Speaker 1: even though there was evidence that jurors came forward and
Speaker 1: said that there was a unanimous.
Speaker 4: Argument that double jeopardy was overridden by the judge. Yeah, so,
Speaker 4: which is interesting. That's interesting. So what we learn, we
Speaker 4: think we learn is it's all or nothing. If we're
Speaker 4: going to retry the case, We're going to try it all.
Speaker 4: But it would go the other way around too. They
Speaker 4: found her guilty on certain charges and not guilty and
Speaker 4: hung on other charges. Again, they would throw it all
Speaker 4: out and have to start all over.
Speaker 1: The problem is is that I don't think the jury
Speaker 1: that might get appealed.
Speaker 3: The jury did not.
Speaker 1: I guess the jury wasn't forthcoming and what they were
Speaker 1: unanimous on. They just basically were like, we just can't
Speaker 1: come to a decision on all three. And then later
Speaker 1: it was determined that they did actually come to a
Speaker 1: decision on two. But I guess at this point in time,
Speaker 1: it doesn't retroactively apply, and she has to be retried
Speaker 1: on all three counts again starting April first, which we
Speaker 1: will follow, So make sure that you continue to listen
Speaker 1: to the podcast because we're going to follow the Karen
Speaker 1: Reid trial, which I think will be really interesting.
Speaker 2: Question.
Speaker 4: Yes, during all this time, is she in custody or
Speaker 4: is she out on bail?
Speaker 2: That's what I want to know.
Speaker 3: Okay, So she's out.
Speaker 4: On bail, okay.
Speaker 1: And they were dating for two years and she is
Speaker 1: forty four, So those are your and you can google
Speaker 1: an image of her so that you can see what
Speaker 1: she looks like. All right, So there you go. That's
Speaker 1: a little brief. I know that if a lot of
Speaker 1: you followed the care and read trial, I know that
Speaker 1: there was a lot more involved. There were like seventy
Speaker 1: witnesses or something.
Speaker 4: I just looked her up guilty, Okay.
Speaker 1: So I understand that there's a lot more details. However,
Speaker 1: we wanted to do a brief overview just so that
Speaker 1: we could all kind of be on the same page,
Speaker 1: that we all have a basic understanding of what happened
Speaker 1: and where we're at, so that we can follow this
Speaker 1: starting on April first. So again, thank you guys so
Speaker 1: much for all the amazing feedback. So many of you
Speaker 1: have reached out and said that you enjoy listening. Also,
Speaker 1: you find Shane funny. I appreciate that Shane appreciates that
Speaker 1: I do all the work and Shane is the sidekick
Speaker 1: that asked the questions. But a lot of you say
Speaker 1: that you enjoy it because he asked the questions that
Speaker 1: you are thinking. So we appreciate the positive feedback. And
Speaker 1: just to let you know, we're going to release episodes
Speaker 1: every two weeks, so that is the plan going forward.
Speaker 1: So again, thank you so much for listening and we
Speaker 1: will see you next time.
Speaker 4: Thank you bye people.
Speaker 1: A